Evolution and Politics

[Weegle777 78]

Can you prove with absolute certainty that we came from soup? No. Just like those that say you can't prove God created us so that can't be taught.

You can teach adaptation all day long. Just not where you "believe" we came from.

Scientific theory is allowed to be taught, would be silly to not cover it in science classes.

Religious theory should also be taught I think, at least covering the worlds main religions. Those of Abraham, Hindu, and Buddhism.... maybe others, I don't know exact number's of followers.

One problem people have is not knowing the difference between teaching and preaching, a little enlightenment about various world religions would not be a bad thing for everyone to get.

Though I believe most Christians want preaching in schools, not teaching.

I agree with you, preaching and absolutes shouldn't be taught by our laws, which is why a teacher shouldn't be allowed to teach that we came from a soupy substance.

With my children, I have done my due diligence and taught them about God and have told them about how some teachers will try to tell them that we came from soup and evolved from apes. And they laughed at the soup and monkey story. But some kids place a ton of weight in what these teachers say and will take it as gospel. Which is why teachers need to be held accountable for stating as fact something that can never be proven (the coming from soup and monkeys story).

[AUDub 11,147]

Can you prove with absolute certainty that we came from soup? No. Just like those that say you can't prove God created us so that can't be taught.

You can teach adaptation all day long. Just not where you "believe" we came from.

Scientific theory is allowed to be taught, would be silly to not cover it in science classes.

Religious theory should also be taught I think, at least covering the worlds main religions. Those of Abraham, Hindu, and Buddhism.... maybe others, I don't know exact number's of followers.

One problem people have is not knowing the difference between teaching and preaching, a little enlightenment about various world religions would not be a bad thing for everyone to get.

Though I believe most Christians want preaching in schools, not teaching.

I agree with you, preaching and absolutes shouldn't be taught by our laws, which is why a teacher shouldn't be allowed to teach that we came from a soupy substance.

With my children, I have done my due diligence and taught them about God and have told them about how some teachers will try to tell them that we came from soup and evolved from apes. And they laughed at the soup and monkey story. But some kids place a ton of weight in what these teachers say and will take it as gospel. Which is why teachers need to be held accountable for stating as fact something that can never be proven (the coming from soup and monkeys story).

That is the most ridiculous way I have ever heard it phrased. You have a bizarro mindset on this. Reminds me of Mr. Garrison teaching it in South Park.

[aubfaninga 16]

Yes and the actual mountains of proof that intelligent design is true.

:laugh:/> Such as? Let's go down the list!

Now you know I am gonna claim any test results as a product of intelligent design.

[aubfaninga 16]

I think the question was a bogus one given the forum. I tend to agree with Jonah Goldberg on this one. Walker should have answered that the evidence certainly seems to bare out that all life evolves.To what end and for what purpose...only God knows. :hellyeah:/>

You should run!

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Can you prove with absolute certainty that we came from soup? No. Just like those that say you can't prove God created us so that can't be taught.

You can teach adaptation all day long. Just not where you "believe" we came from.

Scientific theory is allowed to be taught, would be silly to not cover it in science classes.

Religious theory should also be taught I think, at least covering the worlds main religions. Those of Abraham, Hindu, and Buddhism.... maybe others, I don't know exact number's of followers.

One problem people have is not knowing the difference between teaching and preaching, a little enlightenment about various world religions would not be a bad thing for everyone to get.

Though I believe most Christians want preaching in schools, not teaching.

I agree with you, preaching and absolutes shouldn't be taught by our laws, which is why a teacher shouldn't be allowed to teach that we came from a soupy substance.

With my children, I have done my due diligence and taught them about God and have told them about how some teachers will try to tell them that we came from soup and evolved from apes. And they laughed at the soup and monkey story. But some kids place a ton of weight in what these teachers say and will take it as gospel. Which is why teachers need to be held accountable for stating as fact something that can never be proven (the coming from soup and monkeys story).

That is the most ridiculous way I have ever heard it phrased. You have a bizarro mindset on this. Reminds me of Mr. Garrison teaching it in South Park.

That is MS. Garrison. Just to be politically correct!

[AUDub 11,147]

Yes and the actual mountains of proof that intelligent design is true.

Such as? Let's go down the list!

Now you know I am gonna claim any test results as a product of intelligent design.

A Ford Taurus is the product of intelligent design. But who was the designer? That's an important detail.

PZ Myers actually had a debate on the matter last night. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, what with him being an arch-atheist, but he makes some fine points.

Is there evidence for a creator or not?

I’m a reluctant debater. There are a couple of reasons for that.

One, debate is not how scientists resolve differences of opinion. You might find a few examples back in the 19th century or earlier, but in general nowadays, when a scientist finds himself on a stage with an opponent, it’s usually because an advocate for a fringe position is begging that their ideas be judged as credible enough to discuss. Theology and politics are hashed over in debates, but science is resolved in the court of observation and experiment.

Two, debates never seem to decide anything. I have no illusions that this audience will find my arguments so persuasive that anyone will change their minds. All I can hope to do is share a little bit of what I know with you, and hope it will trigger some of you to do deeper study of the subject.

Third, because scientists don’t debate, we never get training in it. Seriously, not once in my graduate or post-doctoral training, or in 25 years as a professor, have I ever done a debate in an academic setting, or even seen one put on at a science conference. It was important for us to get training in presenting science in talks and papers, but debate? Nope. So you’ll have to appreciate that I’m not very good at it. Again, all I can do is use the stage as a platform to present a few ideas.

But there’s another reason I find debates like this to be an exercise in futility. I’ve already won. As nice and persuasive as Dr Rana may be to you, nothing he says will influence the scientific consensus: it’s settled. Evolution works. You, the audience, may want to believe in God, but science has no need of that hypothesis.

I also know exactly how this debate is going to go.

Let me tell you a little story. Many years ago, I was in Washington DC, and as I usually do, I found an excuse to visit the museums on the mall. As a biologist, I always make a beeline for the Smithsonian, but this one time I thought I’d try something different, and I went to the National Portrait Gallery, thinking I’d do something light and easy.

It really opened my eyes.

I was doing the usual superficial visitor thing — “uh-huh, that’s nice, next” — moving quickly through rooms full of pictures, when I turned a corner and right there, in my face, was this painting: “Two Women at a Window”. Instead of my usual two-second glance before moving on, I stopped and really looked at it, and something about it compelled my attention.

It was beautiful. The subject was enchanting: the two women looking out, that smile on the face of one and the coy laughter of the other. There was the lovely lighting — really, the digital image is inadequate, and you have to see the real thing to get a feel for how gloriously cheerful and enticing the painting is. And I stood right there, and I looked at it for about 45 minutes before I had to leave — just this one painting! —and I just immersed myself in it, looking at the brush strokes and fine detail, stepping back and seeing it from different angles. I’m no fancy art aficionado, but for a little while I could see what drew people into art.

The painting is by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo, a 17th century Spanish artist, and it’s a portrait of two Gallician women. But now imagine, as I stand there enjoying it, that I’m joined by a fellow art lover — someone who thinks exactly as I do, that this is a beautiful painting well worth savoring. But he has a different idea. This painting is so beautiful that it could not possibly have been created by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo — it could only have come into existence by supernatural means, and he says he knows exactly who painted it and what magic was involved, and he’d like to debate me on the subject.

Do I need to paint the similarity to the situation tonight with a broader brush?

Anyway, the correct answer is obvious to me, and I’m curious to see how this person is going to defend his peculiar position. As a minimal necessity, I expect to hear something about the identity of the mysterious True Painter, and something about the True Painter’s methods, and I would hope quite a bit about epistemology — how did my opponent make his case, where did he learn the Truth of this painting?

In this little parable, I am disappointed, as I expect to be tonight. While insisting that everything had a supernatural cause, he dwells on the physicality of the painting: it’s on canvas, the colors come from complex combinations of organic and inorganic compounds, that scientists can bounce lasers off it and determine the proportions of each element in it spectroscopically.

Wait, I say, you’re making my case for me. The painting is a natural object, made of earthly matter, of compounds arranged in a way that is perfectly compatible with all physical laws.

So then he tells me, look, it’s made of hundreds of thousands of precise tiny brushstrokes, each one contributing to whole. It’s incredibly complex. It can’t have been created by natural means.

And I try to explain that complex objects are generated by natural mechanisms all the time — that something is complex is not evidence that it was spontaneously generated by an invisible spirit. We can look at how paintings are made even now, and see equally complex images created without the aid of metaphysical agents.

His reply is to cast doubt on the existence of Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. We don’t know his exact birthday — sometime late in 1617. We don’t know whether he was born in Seville or Pilas. Therefore we should question whether Bartolomé Esteban Murillo even really existed, opening the door to the idea that some other mystical agent actually created the paintings.

Then I will be tempted to reply in kind: but we have his baptismal certificate from 1618! We know the names of his parents (Gaspar and Maria)! We know that he studied under Juan del Castillo, and that he was prolific and left a great many surviving paintings!

That’s the temptation, that I respond by deluging you in kind with more and more details, while failing to address the great big void in the room — that despite postulating a supernatural mechanism, despite calling into doubt the existence of the material cause on the flimsiest of excuses, my critic has not revealed who the True Painter is, how he knows its identity, how it placed all those exquisite brush strokes on the canvas, in fact, no positive evidence at all for his hypothesis.

My little story expresses my frustration with these kinds of events, and tells you what I predict.

I predict that tonight Dr Rana will first simply assume without evidence that his proposed creator of all exists, and further, that this creator is the Christian god. He will not actually defend this proposition, because it is indefensible, and because as is typical at these events, the audience is packed with people who take the assumption for granted. It’s a shame, too, because the basis of the whole creationist premise relies entirely on the existence of this being…a being who leaves no trace of its activity and no explanation of its motives or methods. I would suggest that in the absence of any evidence for the proposed first cause, any discussion of its hypothetical actions is simply dismissible.

Second, any attempt to justify the existence of this creator will involve pointing at a bible or pointing at biology, chemistry, and physics. The bible is irrelevant; I could point at the Harry Potter books, and at best they are evidence for the existence of JK Rowling, but not for the existence of magic powers. As for science, as I have seen many times before, when asked for evidence of supernatural miracles in the history of life, creationists provide examples of natural, material processes rather than the actual supernatural processes we’re asking for. It makes no sense. If you’re insisting that a painting was created by magic, telling me about the fine details of the brush strokes is making my case for me.

Third, much of the argument will consist of claiming that the evolutionary explanation is incomplete or even erroneous in parts. That’s something I’ll agree with: science is always a work in progress, and if we knew everything, science would stop. But while nitpicking at the details and telling you about what we don’t know, Dr Rana will not say the obvious: that the creationist explanation is empty and nonexistent, void of all details, having no experimental or explanatory power, and so feeble that all of science has simply abandoned it.

[aubfaninga 16]

Bigben, I enjoyed the reading and actually agree with his stance. Like I said in another post, the bible is not intended to prove the anti science solution.

The best example again is the boiling water on my stove. You could tell every reason how the water is boiling but my wife will simply say, "because you wanted tea". There is one thing I know for sure. My wife is correct and can never be tested as false.

[AUDub 11,147]

Bigben, I enjoyed the reading and actually agree with his stance.

He's got a way with words when he's not being crass, and he is crass the majority of the time.

Like I said in another post, the bible is not intended to prove the anti science solution.

If only more Christian's felt the like us on the matter. Take Weegs, for instance. His position seems to be "teach the (nonexistent) controversy or don't teach science at all."

Do you know how many branches of science you have to reject to fit with the "evolution is a myth" worldview? Pretty much all of them.

The best example again is the boiling water on my stove. You could tell every reason how the water is boiling but my wife will simply say, "because you wanted tea". There is one thing I know for sure. My wife is correct and can never be tested as false.

That brings me back to thermodynamics. I'm still curious about your position that evolution violates the second law.

[Aufan59 60]

Evolution violates the second law, if you define the second law in lamens terms that involve "randomness" and "disorder" an discount the "closed system".

Based on this false definition, you could just as easily say that my fridge violates the second law, because the entropy inside of it is decreases.

[AUDub 11,147]

aubfaninga, Aufan59 here is the one that helped cure me of my ignorance (and a large amount of stupidity) regarding thermodynamics about two years ago.

I'd still like to hear your explanation in your words, though.

[Weegle777 78]

Bigben, I enjoyed the reading and actually agree with his stance.

:cheers:/>

He's got a way with words when he's not being crass, and he is crass the majority of the time.

Like I said in another post, the bible is not intended to prove the anti science solution.

If only more Christian's felt the like us on the matter. Take Weegs, for instance. His position seems to be "teach the (nonexistent) controversy or don't teach science at all."

Do you know how many branches of science you have to reject to fit with the "evolution is a myth" worldview? Pretty much all of them.

The best example again is the boiling water on my stove. You could tell every reason how the water is boiling but my wife will simply say, "because you wanted tea". There is one thing I know for sure. My wife is correct and can never be tested as false.

That brings me back to thermodynamics. I'm still curious about your position that evolution violates the second law.

That is an outright lie.

[AUDub 11,147]

That is an outright lie.

If you would be so kind as to point out the lie, I would appreciate it.

In reality, though, it's the logical extension of your argument.

[aubfaninga 16]

The best example again is the boiling water on my stove. You could tell every reason how the water is boiling but my wife will simply say, "because you wanted tea". There is one thing I know for sure. My wife is correct and can never be tested as false.

That brings me back to thermodynamics. I'm still curious about your position that evolution violates the second law.

Let me first state the obvious. I have never touched, seen, or been involved with any science on these subjects for or against. This alone disqualifies me from being anything close to an authoritative source. BUT!!! That does not make my questions and or curiosity any less valid or uneducated as most people that cling to the words of others.

My words are not from a college textbook on these subjects but I hope that you can peel back the layman terms to see the questions and thoughts for what they are. The Catholic church used ignorance as a way of bringing the masses into subjection of their reasoning of the world. I wish more atheistic scientists would not use this same tool. "Your stupid myths blind you from scientific fact"

These types are the same people who refuse to acknowledge that most of the LAWS, theories, and hypothesis they practice came from the minds of theistic scientists. Even Darwin was educated as a theist but slowly became an agnostic over the period of his lifetime. If only Darwin was here today and could see how far science has gotten in finding the complexity of this "simple organism". I am quite positive his mind would be blown away but would only push the science of Evolution to higher standards of thinking.

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic"

Please understand that one of the foundational LAWS that govern my state of mind is not to make any graven image of my creator. At it's simplest form this is simply meant about building Idols but it can be applied to forming an idea in my mind about GOD, from my imagination, and stating it as fact. I carry this principle into my understanding of science. if I think I have it all figured out and etched in stone then I am no longer able to learn.

Your answer on probabilities shows to me that "time", in your mind, is an accepted law and not just a state of our consciousness. (my head would explode if you even mention A and B theories) If "time" did not govern our existence as we know it then your answer would have been, "100% probability".

This leads down the wormhole of eternal existence of matter vs something from nothing. Both thoughts are firmly planted in speculation and imagination. Listening in on discussions concerning metaphysics and quantum physics is equivalent to me listening in on conversations at a star trek convention. I have no clue!!!

So in my simple mind, I can't reason why a hypothesis on "resurrection" is any less probable than the hypothesis of abiogenesis. I am just ready to admit that the first hypothesis falls flat on its face without outside manipulation or influence.

The Miller-Urey experiment is another example of intelligent manipulation. Here is where I am scratching my head. The variables he used do not match what most scientists consider to be the atmospheric conditions of our early earth. A good majority of scientists feel the earths atmosphere was filled with heavy amounts of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The atmosphere inside the glass of the Miller-Urey experiment seems very hospitable compared to modern views. (still a very important study)

The trick is to fit all these pieces into one cohesive unit. Abiogenesis must agree with accepted carbon dating principles, "time", and decay. Then once we get these in perfect harmony we must observe the creation and sustainability of amino acids in the accepted view of our early atmosphere. Now we have to create Nucleic Acids in harmony with everything already mentioned. Then we have to show how these stubborn Nucleic Acids will stay in a concentrated area long enough to bond into even more complex molecules all while accepting the energy to do this must agree with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You or I defining the the 2nd law of thermodynamics will only introduce more confusion. I think what I am trying to say is abiogenesis is very restricted by the 2LOT as it governs the mechanism. (example photosynthesis) This is why the focus of abiogenesis has quietly walked away from sunlight and moved toward hydrothermal vents. Hydrothermal vents, even to me, seem like the best starting point to focus on.

Now my mind starts to hurt. Let's just assume that I am convinced that a simple organism could have been produced in one of these environments from non biological material. It now seems that evolution(in its current definitions) destroys this living organism the instance it leaves its "goldfish" bowl. The fact that it is a simple organism would mean that it lacks the adaptive complexity to survive outside of this "hellish" paradise. It is stuck in the cavern that it was produced in with no stress from an alien environment. It's like throwing the goldfish on the ground and telling it to evolve or die.

The only observable science I can find on dormant hydrothermal sea vents only points me to ecological succession.

This is all I got Bigben. I feel no shame in admitting that I am out of my league but I will never give up my curiosity to explore and learn. I most likely can't respond to any reply unless I need clarification on something that might correct my thinking. I hope that you can gather enough from my gibberish to see that I am not anti-evolution. I would be thrilled if any of my children decided to study farther into these fields. I just think to teach my child that evolution is a fact to prove the origin of life is beyond ignorance of known facts and DEFINATELY is held up by faith in the unknown. This is why I have no problem with creationism not being taught in school either. (I do find it strange that they offer mythology in high school but that is another topic)

Hope your daddy doughnut day went well.

[Aufan59 60]

The trick is to fit all these pieces into one cohesive unit. Abiogenesis must agree with accepted carbon dating principles, "time", and decay. Then once we get these in perfect harmony we must observe the creation and sustainability of amino acids in the accepted view of our early atmosphere. Now we have to create Nucleic Acids in harmony with everything already mentioned. Then we have to show how these stubborn Nucleic Acids will stay in a concentrated area long enough to bond into even more complex molecules all while accepting the energy to do this must agree with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You or I defining the the 2nd law of thermodynamics will only introduce more confusion. I think what I am trying to say is abiogenesis is very restricted by the 2LOT as it governs the mechanism. (example photosynthesis) This is why the focus of abiogenesis has quietly walked away from sunlight and moved toward hydrothermal vents. Hydrothermal vents, even to me, seem like the best starting point to focus on.

Think of raindrops on a windshield. They arrive randomly across your windshield, but as they drip down some streams merge together. In lamens terms, they are becoming more organized and less random. But in thermodynamics, the water is losing potential energy and thus gaining entropy.

Matter can seemingly become more organized as the system increases in entropy.

[homersapien 11,362]

I don't get the relevance of thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system. The sun is constantly pumping energy into it.

[Mims44 1,867]

Can you prove with absolute certainty that we came from soup? No. Just like those that say you can't prove God created us so that can't be taught.

You can teach adaptation all day long. Just not where you "believe" we came from.

Scientific theory is allowed to be taught, would be silly to not cover it in science classes.

Religious theory should also be taught I think, at least covering the worlds main religions. Those of Abraham, Hindu, and Buddhism.... maybe others, I don't know exact number's of followers.

One problem people have is not knowing the difference between teaching and preaching, a little enlightenment about various world religions would not be a bad thing for everyone to get.

Though I believe most Christians want preaching in schools, not teaching.

I agree with you, preaching and absolutes shouldn't be taught by our laws, which is why a teacher shouldn't be allowed to teach that we came from a soupy substance.

With my children, I have done my due diligence and taught them about God and have told them about how some teachers will try to tell them that we came from soup and evolved from apes. And they laughed at the soup and monkey story. But some kids place a ton of weight in what these teachers say and will take it as gospel. Which is why teachers need to be held accountable for stating as fact something that can never be proven (the coming from soup and monkeys story).

Not exactly my point, but I don't think it is supposed to be taught as concrete truth.

To do so stunts the mental growth of the child.. critical thinking skills especially, research has shown that kids who are given less "concrete answers" but theories and are asked to decide for themselves score markedly higher on science, problem solving, and critical thinking areas of standardized tests. Other countries have long since moved away from this and America is too. Basically the key is to grow the hunger for knowledge, not spoonfeed stale information.

And the inclusion of religion classes would not be to convert, but to give understanding to students. A lot of kids grow up with their only knowledge of religions being their parents saying "All Christians are awesome, and that's why all Muslims want to kill them"

[AUDub 11,147]

I don't get the relevance of thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system. The sun is constantly pumping energy into it.

Bingo. It's a common creationist trope, though.

Working on your reply aubfaninga. Big wall o' text.

[aubfaninga 16]

The trick is to fit all these pieces into one cohesive unit. Abiogenesis must agree with accepted carbon dating principles, "time", and decay. Then once we get these in perfect harmony we must observe the creation and sustainability of amino acids in the accepted view of our early atmosphere. Now we have to create Nucleic Acids in harmony with everything already mentioned. Then we have to show how these stubborn Nucleic Acids will stay in a concentrated area long enough to bond into even more complex molecules all while accepting the energy to do this must agree with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You or I defining the the 2nd law of thermodynamics will only introduce more confusion. I think what I am trying to say is abiogenesis is very restricted by the 2LOT as it governs the mechanism. (example photosynthesis) This is why the focus of abiogenesis has quietly walked away from sunlight and moved toward hydrothermal vents. Hydrothermal vents, even to me, seem like the best starting point to focus on.

Think of raindrops on a windshield. They arrive randomly across your windshield, but as they drip down some streams merge together. In lamens terms, they are becoming more organized and less random. But in thermodynamics, the water is losing potential energy and thus gaining entropy.

Matter can seemingly become more organized as the system increases in entropy.

Thank you for the water illustration.

Do you have an equally elementary illustration on the binding of Nucleic Acids?

[aubfaninga 16]

I don't get the relevance of thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system. The sun is constantly pumping energy into it.

Bingo. It's a common creationist trope, though.

Working on your reply aubfaninga. Big wall o' text.

Thanks big. I'm on graveyard shift so I am going to rest my brain. With all of this thinking my left side brain has started calling my right side by the name Boltzmann. I don't like voices without the influence of alcohol.

[aubfaninga 16]

I don't get the relevance of thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system. The sun is constantly pumping energy into it.

Great. I am excited to see this abiogenesis demonstration then.

[homersapien 11,362]

I don't get the relevance of thermodynamics. The earth is not a closed system. The sun is constantly pumping energy into it.

Great. I am excited to see this abiogenesis demonstration then.

Look around.

[Aufan59 60]

The trick is to fit all these pieces into one cohesive unit. Abiogenesis must agree with accepted carbon dating principles, "time", and decay. Then once we get these in perfect harmony we must observe the creation and sustainability of amino acids in the accepted view of our early atmosphere. Now we have to create Nucleic Acids in harmony with everything already mentioned. Then we have to show how these stubborn Nucleic Acids will stay in a concentrated area long enough to bond into even more complex molecules all while accepting the energy to do this must agree with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You or I defining the the 2nd law of thermodynamics will only introduce more confusion. I think what I am trying to say is abiogenesis is very restricted by the 2LOT as it governs the mechanism. (example photosynthesis) This is why the focus of abiogenesis has quietly walked away from sunlight and moved toward hydrothermal vents. Hydrothermal vents, even to me, seem like the best starting point to focus on.

Think of raindrops on a windshield. They arrive randomly across your windshield, but as they drip down some streams merge together. In lamens terms, they are becoming more organized and less random. But in thermodynamics, the water is losing potential energy and thus gaining entropy.

Matter can seemingly become more organized as the system increases in entropy.

Thank you for the water illustration.

Do you have an equally elementary illustration on the binding of Nucleic Acids?

I was simply explaining your misunderstanding of the second law. Something becoming more "organized" or "complex" is not a violation of the second law.

The second law is brilliantly simple: Heat does not flow from cold to hot. Energy does not flow uphill.

The formation of self replicating molecules does not violate the second law.

[aubfaninga 16]

I was simply explaining your misunderstanding of the second law. Something becoming more "organized" or "complex" is not a violation of the second law.

The second law is brilliantly simple: Heat does not flow from cold to hot. Energy does not flow uphill.

The formation of self replicating molecules does not violate the second law.

Please do not think that I am trying to argue from a stance of "my GOD" said so. I am honestly putting my hands into stuff that is way over my head in an attempt to better understand the debate.

So now I will propose yet another question for anyone to help answer for me.

Is all non-biological matter a closed system? Is this not how carbon dating works? Can you carbon date a living organism?

If I am correct, a living organism is an open system because it exchanges matter and energy with it's environment.

This is how I propose the 2LT restricts the jump. How can non-biological matter become a living organism? Where does the code to "exchange energy" come from?

Again I know my words may sound like toddler babble to some but please take the questions seriously.

To the best of my knowledge there is no non-biological matter that has the information to be an open system. We are able to "clone" because the information is still available from LIVING cells. I can't find anywhere that we can even take dead cells by themselves and clone them.

If I clone a rock what will I get?

If we can't even "clone" singular dead cells in a lab, why are we ready to teach the origin of life as a fact?

[Mims44 1,867]

I was simply explaining your misunderstanding of the second law. Something becoming more "organized" or "complex" is not a violation of the second law.

The second law is brilliantly simple: Heat does not flow from cold to hot. Energy does not flow uphill.

The formation of self replicating molecules does not violate the second law.

Please do not think that I am trying to argue from a stance of "my GOD" said so. I am honestly putting my hands into stuff that is way over my head in an attempt to better understand the debate.

So now I will propose yet another question for anyone to help answer for me.

Is all non-biological matter a closed system? Is this not how carbon dating works? Can you carbon date a living organism?

If I am correct, a living organism is an open system because it exchanges matter and energy with it's environment.

This is how I propose the 2LT restricts the jump. How can non-biological matter become a living organism? Where does the code to "exchange energy" come from?

Again I know my words may sound like toddler babble to some but please take the questions seriously.

To the best of my knowledge there is no non-biological matter that has the information to be an open system. We are able to "clone" because the information is still available from LIVING cells. I can't find anywhere that we can even take dead cells by themselves and clone them.

If I clone a rock what will I get?

If we can't even "clone" singular dead cells in a lab, why are we ready to teach the origin of life as a fact?

People will answer this with theories, even widely accepted theories.

Bottom line is we don't know 100%.

we had a geocentric universe for awhile, then a helioscentric universe, then a heliocentric system.....

what you want to know will become known at some point (speaking of all questions not just these). The biggest problem for most people is accepting their own ignorance.

[aubfaninga 16]

People will answer this with theories, even widely accepted theories.

Bottom line is we don't know 100%.

we had a geocentric universe for awhile, then a helioscentric universe, then a heliocentric system.....

what you want to know will become known at some point (speaking of all questions not just these). The biggest problem for most people is accepting their own ignorance.

I was just simple minded jock, drowning my alter ego with countless games of beer pong. Then one day he showed up...