Conference Concludes Origin of Life Research Is at a Standstill

Each evolutionist believes in his own variant of evolution. If one of them makes a claim it is so easy to google out another one destroying the claim.

And all of them run out to scream Allah Abhar to another place when they face simple questions bolded read for them.

Since this post is going to be deleted by mods and I am going to be banned from the thread as a routine of my joyful existence on the PF , you, scientists or future scientists have a few hours to answer a few simple questions:

http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...n-life-research-standstill-9.html#post3706298

Am I talking to 13 years olds?

That is the 3rd chance I am giving you.

 

i didnt say anything about darwin. i was asking NB what would qualify as a transitional form to him. technically, we are all transitional forms.

you dont need to tell me what evolution is, i know what evolution is.

 

How exactly can Europeans still exist if North Americans descended from them?! IT MAKES NO SENSE! History must be a lie.

 

I'd like to confront this quote of yours, Inquisitor, from the other thread.

1. Well, I won't even take a look at your analogy that you provided because your basic premises are just wrong.

Such as:

"Cooling steam (vapor) into a snow flake means increase in entropy"

False, a vapor into a solid would be a decrease in entropy.

"Obviously crystallized matter is less complex that the matter before crystallization."

LOL, WAT?

That isn't obvious, it is just flat out wrong.



vs.



2. Looking at the diagram you are referring to what your statement can ever possibly mean?

What? What diagram?

3 and 4 are basically the same question.

Everybody that understands entropy and the second law of thermodynamics knows that entropy can decrease in the presence of an energy source, this isn't anything new.

Yes, I'm sure that random internet poster #1,302,213,456,439 with probably no scientific background what-so-ever knows more about science than the actual scientists.

Anyways, here is a plethora of links that state you're wrong

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441

http://ai.stanford.edu/~csewell/essays/ch3.htm

http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/Kinetics/entropy.htm

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/cyerkes/Chem104ACSpring2009/Worksheets/Worksheet_Entropy.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0053.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=CX...epage&q=phase change decrease entropy&f=false

http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/clc/general/104/HelpSheet_18_104.pdf

http://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/VirtTxtJml/energy1.htm

http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/cronk/chemistry/L00-index.cfm?L00resource=entropy

http://depts.washington.edu/chemcrs/bulkdisk/chem152A_sum04/homework_answers_Homework_3.pdf

http://www.vias.org/genchem/equilib_2ndlaw_12593_07.html

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-snowflake/

Yes, even the Institute for Creation Research disagrees with you that crystallization is an increase of entropy.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30094977

Anyways, that's enough.

I'll just end this night with a laugh.

"insisting that the dead matter can break laws of gravity"

Hahahahahahahaha, WHAT? What laws of gravity are broken, here?

 

Were you banned from the other thread as I was or you just do not understand an orderly debate?

Sure you wouldn’t even look, because you just spew words not caring about their meaning, and not caring to read what you replying to. Priceless, “I wouldn’t even look but I confront”…What are premises and analogies in my post?

Just because you say so, not even having a clue in what you are saying? Is it a premise or an analogy? What do atheists do? They take a line out of the Bible and totally ignore explanations given in the same bible.

Just because you say so, not even having a clue in what you are saying? How in the world your pics are a confirmation of your statement?

Evolutionists just spew absurd – they think no meaning or relation to the real world is needed and they try to overwhelm with amounts of the fart produced in the room. “You cannot overwhelm them brilliance, overwhelm them with amounts of fart” is the modus operandi of scientists.


The Q was – are you 13 years old?

Since you have not address the simple questions posted on THIS thread and came with a quote from another thread I have to assume that I am talking to a 13 years old. One more time: am I correct? Is there a grownup evolutionist on this board?


As any decent person can see:
1. You have not made even a slightest attempt to address the article of the giver of the 2nd law demonstrating that scientists are imbeciles.

2. You have not made even a slightest attempt to address the fact that no closed or isolated system is observed in Nature. Such simply do not exist. I don’t know who cannot see that scientists are imbeciles. The make their own ‘laws” for things which do not exist in Nature.

3. You have not made even a slightest attempt to address the fact that thermodynamics is not about geometry.

4. You have not made even a slightest attempt to address the fact that for steam to become a snowflake steam has to loose energy.

5. You have not made even a slightest attempt to address the fact that more information expressed in 0,1 is needed for you computer to output steam rather than a snowflake on you screen.

6. You have addressed nothing as usual. That is because atheists are religious fanatics who hear nothing, see nothing but are only capable of spewing meaningless irrelevant to reality absurd.

Random internet poster #1,302,213,456, is not random. He is an atheist only. Nobody else has an idea what is randomness, random. Only atheists do. I would think it is the state of an atheistic mind, but I soon as I come to this conclusion, it is not random anymore, it is strictly defined. Scientists have no understanding of the words they spew out.

What is your need to multiply the same absurd claims? I have proven more than sufficiently that scientists believe that the 2nd law is for a closed system only and crystals are more orderly in thermodynamics and a snowflake is more complex than drops of water on your pics..
I posted a bunch of links proving that. You just have added more links to confirm my proof and now what? What is the point?

 

Now again, not for atheists, as it proven again that one cannot reason with religious fanatics, but for any lawman who is interested,

1. We have established and confirmed the fact that atheists have no clue about anything as they have not even made an attempt to address this post http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...n-life-research-standstill-9.html#post3706298 on THIS thread.

- Thermodynamics is not evolution, it is not science, it is not about how it looks to an eye, not about morphological properties. It is (like the Universe) about transformation of energy.

It was developed with the goal of improving efficiency of a steam machine, getting the best bang out of a buck, there is no science here. The higher is pressure and T of steam the more work is produced by the machine, the less $$ you pay for electricity out of your pocket. Obviously snowflakes have not been producing any work in any technology as a layman can notice. Scientists selling you snowflakes are scum, charlatans, in the best case just clueless imbeciles.

- The idea of entropy was introduced exactly for estimating ability/disability to produce work.

The energy content of the condensate (water drops) is a lot higher than of the snowflake in the pics. (Which also could be seen on the ip diagram.) One can see that dropping heat/energy from the point of steam leads to condensation (drops of water on the pics.) and then to crystallization (snowflakes). Obviously steam in the beginning has more potential to produce work than ice in the end. Loosing this potential it turns into the less potential (more disabled) condensate (drops of water) and then into even more disabled ice (snowflakes). As S is a measure of disability it is the greatest in the ice.

- Again, complexity may checked out , demonstrated – no need for scientific diatribe here. Any sane man can know that it takes more bits of information to describe moving and changing steam, then the given snowflakes; for the latter you can just write the simplest algorithm ‘’repeat the basic figure each 30 degrees reducing it 4 times by 25% from the center.’’ Even an insane one can check it out by folding a piece of paper and cutting a snowflake model out of it. Imbecility of scientists is immeasurable though.. I mean, common, people, don’t you see that scientists and intellectuals are garbage which should be cleaned out in schools and colleges? They have flooded your minds with garbage about complexity blah blah. You can check that by yourself by googling out millions of pages the imbeciles have produced only on Internet. . I mean, common, people, I say only things anyone except for evolutionists can check out by himself see with his own eyes.

Anyone who has an idea about programming would know that molecules in a drop of water MOVING in Brownian motion content more bits of info (are more complex), than FIXED molecules of a snowflake.

Can this basic truth, just one sentence clear you brain from the garbage loaded in it by scientists?

If not, - watch the few seconds video and answer - which one requires more bytes of your PC memory (and thus is more complex)?:
1. vapor(gas),
2. liquid (water), or
3. solids (crystals, snowflakes) ?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-KvoVzukHo&feature=related"]YouTube - States of Matter[/ame]

Mods, please make a poll.

Is it clear now people that science should be banned in public schools and universities? That scientists and intellectuals are garbage which should be thrown away immediately, for the sake of America?

Would it be the one you are referring to? Triple point? In P,T as the most popular (thermodynamics for dummies)?
No diagrams exist for atheists, atheists just pull their beliefs out from the black smoky air of their religion based on unrelated to reality fantasies.


And here is another pearl atheists are coming with. I like it because when it seems it is impossible for a reasonable man to produce such an absurd atheists do it:

What did I ask for? And what you have replied with? Any relation to my question?

Q. Who has told you that water can burn?
A. Everybody knows that sky is blue.

One may have difficulties in believing in God, especially when one has been taught only atheism starting from elementary school. One may think there is no God. But if one has any common sense would one just be ashamed of being in the same camp, the same team with atheists? Shouldn’t one invent God just for the sake of sanity?


What can be my answer to you? You have demonstrated again that atheism is a pure failure of any reason.


As to your claim that S can decrease in the presence of atheistic god the answer is simple – and who made that god?

Or in another words – where the energy to decrease S has come from, and what that is the source of the source of the source of energy … n source of energy… ∞ source of energy has come from? That is considering that process of passing energy from one atheistic god to another and then to earth and then to the snowflakes is accompanied by dissipation of energy. At least be so kind to introduce one scientist who would understand the question. I just googled out for fun and had a lot of fun reading imbeciles from NASA and other scientific communities. I would suggest - make them to design and submit tech specs for a rocket, put them into it and press the start button… that would be a lot of fan to watch them not being even blown into pieces, but rocking their chairs trying to push the rocket. I know, I know that the rocket would never be designed and they would be permanently asking for more and more funds out of my pocket. May be not such imbeciles, but just usual sociopaths, criminals?


In other words in order for the snowflake to decrease entropy (in an ideal cycle) one has to keep on shoveling coal, U235, solar into a steam generator turning the snowflake into steam. In the ideal cycle one would run out of coal, solar, U235 very soon in the perspective of the Universe. I am not even mentioning that one has to stop shoveling into the burner of the generator but start shoveling into another burner to change blades of the turbine in 3 or 5 years. In the real cycle the dissipation of energy occurs each time when a snow flake turns into steam and back, because the 2nd law states: ‘nothing ever comes to the point it started from.” And the sun is running out of energy too, and the galaxies and the Universe. And this process is irreversible. Whatever you do, however you do, the law says, - ‘S happens’. That’s why scientists suggesting a travel in time or pulsating Universe are imbeciles. People of all religions or absence of any – do you really want your kids to be educated by imbeciles?

It is another proof that atheists cannot understand simple reality even it is explained to them in details. Atheists ask – ‘why there are so many gods?’ They list the gods. But when one explains to them that only atheists believe in the existence of gods – as it is clear from the question itself and the list made up by themselves, they produce the same laugh and ban me from threads and delete my posts. Atheism is an insanity of ignorant and undeveloped minds.


Intentionally changing the meaning of the words, taking them out of the context is a clear demonstration of intellectual failure of atheists and evolutionists, they use tactics and abilities of 13 years olds.
Let’s see my dear honest reader how many times I will have to repeat the same question before an atheist would manage to understand it. Let me bold it red.

Who has told you that living matter is in compliance with laws of thermodynamics drawn for dead matter?


After the explanation above, let me also ask you my honest and sane reader, do you still want to belong to the team of atheists? May I suggest just for the sake of your sanity and sanity of this country – whether you believe in God or not – go to the Church at least twice a year and make a small donation and confess - ‘I don’t believe in God but I am quite sane not to belong to the team of 13 years olds playing against God’. As it has been proven experimentally God will be pleased with your honesty and he will triple match your donation by giving you an extra bit of wisdom, an extra bit of knowledge, an extra bit of happiness. Anyone can check, can conduct the experiment, - works like a charm, like the 2nd law.

 

And this is noteworthy because...?

 

Yet you think that the ICR does good science and they make that a requirement to join. Hypocrisy?

 

If you came across a pothole that was filled to the top with water, would you assume that the pothole was created with the exact shape and depth necessary to specifically hold that amount of water, or would you assume that the water conformed to the pothole?

 

O rly, here is what you said:

So, which is it?

A snowflake is either more complex or less complex, it can't be both. Let me just answer that for you: solids are more ordered than gases and liquids, thus it would be a decrease in entropy, not an increase as you have suggested.

 

Inquisitor describes inner energy (U) above and not entropy (S). Unless somebody asks me to do so, I won't try to explain entropy. Let me show, however, why a property other than inner energy is needed to describe the physics of heat. Here's a little thought experiment:

All oceans on earth have a volume of about a billion cubic kilometers (10^18 m^3) or a mass of 10^21 kg. The heat capacity of water is 4182 J/(kg*K). Therefore, the energy required to heat the oceans by 1 Kelvin is about 4*10^24 J. Or by letting the energy flow the other way around, we could generate 4*10^24 J by cooling the oceans by 1 Kelvin. As a comparison, the world energy consumption is about 5*10^20 J per year. We could generate all the energy we need by sucking heat energy out of the oceans, cooling them by merely 0.0001°C per year. Energy problem solved!

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to work at all. Despite countless efforts to do so, no one has been able to build machines that drain heat out of something and convert it into work without some other side effect (like heating a colder body). Similarly, refrigerators need electrical power to work. They don't generate it, although their sole purpose is releasing the heat stored in the stuff inside them.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a compact formulation of that observation inside a mathematical framework.

 

You either don't read or don't understand or most likely both.


It is the same, increase in entropy means decrease in complexity. You talk about things you have no clue about. Moreover you don't even read anything which objects to your blind beliefs. I don't know how can I make it more simple in my post. One more time, thermydanamics is not science, it is not what teach in schools. Try, try to read and understand my posts. It is the field totally unfamiliar to you and other who has been tought only atheism in schools and colleges.

May be this can help, - just wasted my time googling:

https://chemistry.twu.edu/tutorial/EntropySum.html
The more disordered a system, the larger its entropy


The statement that heat never flows from a cold to a hot body can be generalized by saying that in no spontaneous process does the total entropy decrease.

Read more: thermodynamics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0861525.html#ixzz1J5FeMti9

The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/law-thermodynamics-d_94.html

 

Herby you are back!

May I not reply another cycle before you finish the first one: http://www.politicalforum.com/science-technology/159310-pseudoscience-3.html#post3349694

I quick look shows that you are making up things again incomprehensibe and not even wrong.

 

How exactly is this not science, then? You didn't explain yourself, at all. Because there is an application for thermodynamics, it isn't science? Well, (*)(*)(*)(*), I guess everything that is considered science isn't science any longer.

S is a measure of disability? According to who? Do me a favor, what is the equation for a change in entropy? If you do indeed know the equation, work out a problem of a gas condensing into a liquid Is the change in entropy going to be negative or positive for the system?

Here's a simple question that I found on the internet, just plug and chug.

...Wat?

You mentioned a diagram, first.

What the hell does that matter? We weren't discussing the origin of the Universe, we were talking about how entropy of a system can decrease when energy is introduced.

Yes, the sun will run out of energy, what the hell is your point? What does ALL OF WHAT YOU SAID have to do with evolution? You just admitted that there can be a decrease in entropy (though you still apparently believe that solid->gas results in a decrease of entropy). There, out the window the argument that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.

What exactly is the difference between "living" matter and "dead" matter? You keep making this distinction, but it truly doesn't exist. There only exists one kind of matter in this Universe and everything is made of it. So, I think the real question is: "Who has told you that there exists two different forms of matter?"

So, according to you, the Universe is going to turn into a solid? Wtf. This would make sense, if it weren't the exact opposite of what we see and what actually happens.

 

Lol, atheists, again they feel they need not to read what they are replying to. They just pick a line which does not fit their religious belief and go with a blind denial twisting reality.

What is “an application”?
Did you miss the link http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...n-life-research-standstill-9.html#post3706298
in the quote? Have not you quoted it?

The 2nd law.

Does it make any difference to you? Answer and clarify which one do you want me to type.

Is irt a suggestion than one does need equations?

If it makes any difference for you, answer how, and then either make it for H2o or google out T-S diagram for c2h5oh for me I couldn’t

It has been proven that you see what your religion tells you to see. Indeed the Universe is reaching the state of crystallization. This is what actually happens. Even some scientists get it. Even some imbeciles scientists try to mumble out imitating human speech this old truth http://www.rochesterresearch.org/wp...igbang_cryst_and_orig_of_grav_rev_2_15_07.pdf

http://guidetoreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/crystallizing-universe.html

Lol. The 6th time – change in entropy for any system is always positive – this IS the 2nd law.



I think enough is enough. I have a hope that some reasonable people have learned something about thermodynamics, scientists and religious fanatics. Try to answer the question bolded red for you on this thread http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...n-life-research-standstill-9.html#post3706298
And then I will see if it may be worth to continue.

 

Why couldn't the 'origin of life' come from the Big Bang, like science says everything else in the universe did? At the same time. And the universe teams with life...everywhere. All forms. Why do we assume that life came later?

 

Everything did not "come from" the Big Bang. The matter that came from the Big Bang is entirely encompassed by Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. All other elements were fused in the center of stars that formed after the Big Bang. The life that we know about requires those heavier elements, ergo, that life at least did not come from the Big Bang. Perhaps you have some other brainstorm of an idea for "life" and then you are perhaps dealing in the undefined. I'm not sure what you have in mind, please elaborate. But I still would object on the basis that life is complex, that which came from the Big Bang was simple. It was afterwords that complexity arose - stars, galaxies, heavier elements, etc.

 

I'm trying to make sense of the information you offered up; Formed from 'what' after the big bang? Nothing? magic? "All other elements were 'fused' from what? Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium? Aren't these basic elements virtually made of the same building blocks RE: atoms? Aren't all elements made up of atoms? Isn't the theory that everything that exists in the universe, existed in the singularity in an incomprehensibly dense state? If matter is energy and if energy cannot be created or destroyed, just changed, where did all the elements 'pop into' the universe from?

I'm just seeking an explanation that computes.

 

I'm asking you why you don't think thermodynamics is a science. The only reasoning you've stated is that it was developed to improve the efficiency of steam engines. Why would that make it not science?

No, nor according to the second law, only according to you. I ask you to give me one source which describes entropy as disability. I think you're looking for the word "disorder".

Well, which formula would you use for a change in entropy?

To calculate change in entropy, yes you need an equation.

Why would I make a graph? Look:

Using the Gibb's equation - ΔG = ΔH - TΔS

0 = -38.56 - (78.3 + 273) * (ΔS)

ΔS = -0.1098 kJ/mol

There, your hypothesis has been disproved.

Have you actually read this paper? If you have, you'd understand why it doesn't back up what you're saying AT all.

Same thing for this paper, just absolutely a laughable attempt at backing up what you're saying. Read the papers before you try to pass them off as evidence.

If what you were saying was correct, we wouldn't see decay in the Universe we would see the Universe crystallizing. However, we know that crystals can only form in the presence of energy, and we certainly see no evidence of the Universe crystallizing. Can you point out some evidence of this? I doubt it.

NO, it isn't. The second law can be stated as thus:

Considering the general language used, people such as yourself think that this means entropy must ALWAYS increase, which isn't true. The second law only applies to closed systems, and the only true closed system that we know of is the Universe itself. Thus, while there is a net increase in entropy in the Universe, there can be small decreases in entropy in systems with an energy source. We have the sun.

This question has nothing to do with what we are discussing, stop shifting around.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain the difference between "dead" and "living" matter.

 

Then and only then I will see if it is worth to demonstrate to reasonable people again that it is impossible to learn thermodynamics by googling for one who does not understand basic reality, does not understand simple sentences, does not understand what words he has googled out means and goes into Gibbs free energy, especially when one is charged with hatred of all good and reasonable.
Thermodynamics is not science. Reasonable people are those who saw that when you googled out the problem for me, you already googled out the answer.

(on a short note: Did you think that I did not have time to do the same? You were right – I am typing of top of my head.)

Now, go, fetch, I mean google.

 

Then and only then I will see if it is worth to demonstrate to reasonable people again that it is impossible to learn thermodynamics by googling for one who does not understand basic reality, does not understand simple sentences, does not understand what words he has googled out means and goes into Gibb's free energy, especially when one is charged with hatred of all good and reasonable.
Thermodynamics is not science. Reasonable people are those who saw that when you googled out the problem for me, you already googled out the answer.

(on a short note: Did you think that I couldn't to do the same? You were right – I have been typing of top of my head.)

Now, go, fetch, I mean google.

 

Thermodynamics is not science, it cannot be learned by googling, it cannot be learned by studing.
When you read thermodynamics 1st time you think you don’t understand it, when you read it the 2nd time you think you understand it, when you read it the third time you don’t understand it again, but you don’t care anymore.
Thermodynamics can be learned only by doing. Then it is easy to explain it.

 

Experimentation is a pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) big part of science. I'm still not seeing any explanation as to why thermodynamics isn't a science.

 

I'm sorry, but you obviously know nothing about thermodynamics and no, I won't answer your question that doesn't even relate to the topic. It would be pretty clear to anybody here that you have no idea what you're talking about with claims like "thermodynamics isn't science". Also, the whole posting of two articles that contained "crystallization" in them but didn't support what you're saying at all was pretty funny. Go ahead and evade the topic with somebody else, I'm unwilling to move the goalposts.

Edit - Also forgot to mention your incessant claims that there are two forms of matter: dead and living.

 

The Big Bang Theory does state that everything existed in a dense state, but the bit about the singularity assumes you take General Relativity all the way back to t=0 and at such scales that General Relativity is known to be invalid. At that point Quantum Mechanics must be used which inconveniently is incompatible with General Relativity.

So, to the bit about where did everything come from? Did it all pop into existence at t=0 of the Big Bang? Or maybe did it preexist? Or how about coming into existence after t=0? All that can be said with any confidence based on actual evidence is what the universe was like some time after the Big Bang. For simplicity, lets forgo units and just call that t=1. Between t=0 and t=1 is the period known as inflation.

Inflation is a model that is necessary to explain the universe as we find it at t=1. And it is during inflation from which the energy comes. Ahh, but conservation of energy laws state energy cannot be created you say? And you might still be wondering, but where does the energy come from? Well first consider what energy is: according to Quantum Field Theory, the fundamental particles (quarks, leptons, bosons) are excitations of various fields. Also note that atoms are entirely comprised of quarks and leptons. Bosons are the force fields. The relevance of energy is that it is merely a measure of the field excitations.

According to inflation, the universe expanded rapidly while maintaining nearly constant energy density; a requirement necessitated by the homogeneity of the universe at t=1. While that energy increases, the energy of the gravitational field becomes more negative. And so what we have is a universe in which the negative gravitation energy and the rest of the positive energy (classically just energy) sum to exactly cancel each other. In other words, the total measure of energy of the universe is zero.

I hope that computes