Conservation of energy

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Conservation of energy

Post #1

Post by The Tanager »

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #111

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

DrNoGods wrote:

Panspermia is not at all the same as abiogenesis. Just read their definitions. The Wikipedia article on panspermia defines it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

and the last sentence of the second paragraph is this (underline mine):

"Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe."

Evolution describes how life diversified on this planet once it appeared, but it has no dependence whatsoever on HOW life originated. Abiogenesis is an origin-of-life mechanism, while evolution and panspermia are not.

If life forms were transported to Earth via some mechanism (asteroids, comets, space debris, etc.), and that was the source for the first life forms on Earth, then it would follow that panspermia was an explanation for the origin of life on Earth. But it is not a mechanism for life from nonlife, as abiogenesis is. Panspermia is perfectly consistent with an abiogenesis event on some far away body being the source of a life form.

None of this depends on the presence or absence of any god. If life originated on planet Earth via the act of a god (creation), then evolution could proceed just as it does now. If life were transported to Earth from elsewhere (panspermia), then evolution could proceed just as it does now. If life arose from an abiogenesis event on Earth (or elsewhere, then transported to Earth ... ie. panspermia), then evolution could proceed just as it does now. Your continued insistence that evolution is somehow dependent on HOW life arose is simply wrong ... it is not.
I am talking about the origin of life, PERIOD. I don't care how it evolved once it got here, or how it was distributed throughout the universe once it got here. All of that stuff happened after the fact. I am talking about how it originated.

Anything outside of that is red herrings.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #112

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 111 by For_The_Kingdom]
I am talking about the origin of life, PERIOD. I don't care how it evolved once it got here, or how it was distributed throughout the universe once it got here. All of that stuff happened after the fact. I am talking about how it originated.
You don't know how it originated either. All you have is an ancient text written by unknown people trying to guess where everything came from. They invented a magical being who could do anything and said that he therefore made everything. Not much of a hook to hang your hat, but people have wasted their lives chasing all sorts of rainbows.
:study:

Inigo Montoya
Guru
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm

Post #113

Post by Inigo Montoya »

So, FTK...

Do you have anything for the rest of us that would corroborate your claims that the god you like best is responsible for the universe and everything that occurs within it?

You know, something apart from shaking your head, laughing out loud, sticking your fingers in your ears saying "nuh-uh!" and willfully misinterpreting what's being taught to you?

Why don't you present a positive case for us as to why we should accept your god is the one responsible for these things instead of telling us all the ways science has it wrong.


I'll even help you. I'm convinced. You've done it. Abiogenesis and macroevolution don't make any sense and are therefore wrong to me. The universe must also have a cause. I don't know where to turn now that my naturalism religion failed me.

Convince me your god explains it all.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #114

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

brunumb wrote: You don't know how it originated either.
Bruh, there are only two options...

1. Goddidit
2. Naturedidit

Only TWO. I have reasons to believe that God did it, and I have reasons against nature doing it. It is just as simple as that.
brunumb wrote: All you have is an ancient text written by unknown people trying to guess where everything came from.
Those ancient people were smart enough to realize that if paintings require painters (intelligent designer), then so does the painter.

Elementary school logic, adopted by these ancient, unknown people...logic of which these modern, known people don't seem to be using.
brunumb wrote: They invented a magical being who could do anything and said that he therefore made everything.
Kind of like naturalism, and the idea that nature (mother nature) apparently could/did do anything.
brunumb wrote: Not much of a hook to hang your hat, but people have wasted their lives chasing all sorts of rainbows.
:study:
Not only the rainbow, but the pot of gold under it (eternal life).

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #115

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Inigo Montoya wrote: So, FTK...

Do you have anything for the rest of us that would corroborate your claims that the god you like best is responsible for the universe and everything that occurs within it?
Yeah...

My top 3 arguments for theism...

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. Modal Ontological Argument
3. Argument from Consciousness

Also..

For specifically Christian theism: Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You (me) establish theism first, and then you move to even more greener pastures by making case for the Resurrection...and then you have successfully arrived at Christian theism.

Obviously, this isn't something that will happen in a day or two, but as you begin to study and begin to think critically, I think any open-minded, reasonable person can/will get there.
Inigo Montoya wrote: You know, something apart from shaking your head
I will stop shaking my head when you (and others) stop saying things that allows me to shake my head.
Inigo Montoya wrote: , laughing out loud
When I joined this great forum, I didn't know that humor was forbidden and frowned upon.
Inigo Montoya wrote: , sticking your fingers in your ears saying "nuh-uh!" and willfully misinterpreting what's being taught to you?
"What's being taught to you". Again, the whole "you guys are so smart, and I am so dumb" implication. LOL. Yeah, that was funny. Mannn, pleasse. Are you guys going to take heed to what I am "teaching" you? No? Well, then.
Inigo Montoya wrote: Why don't you present a positive case for us as to why we should accept your god is the one responsible for these things instead of telling us all the ways science has it wrong.
I love science. I just accept its limitations...which is more than what most of you can say.
Inigo Montoya wrote: I'll even help you. I'm convinced. You've done it. Abiogenesis and macroevolution don't make any sense and are therefore wrong to me. The universe must also have a cause. I don't know where to turn now that my naturalism religion failed me.

Convince me your god explains it all.
PM me...and I will provide you a positive case for Christian theism at the most basic fundamental level.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #116

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Bust Nak wrote: Incorrect. The logic being used has already been provided: being born and raised Canadian, while in Canada I am a "local," if I go to China, I am a "foreigner."
But if you have aids, you have aids in either Canada or China...so your physical location just doesn't matter as it relates to the internal problem within you.

Same thing with abiogenesis/panspermia...regardless of where the life originates naturally, the problem is still "life cannot originate naturally from nonliving material". And that problem is going where ever you want it to go...whether this universe, multiverse, Pluto, or Mars.

And you don't negate this problem by giving it a different name.
Bust Nak wrote: Who has ever questioned anything remotely resembling that?
Never mind.
Bust Nak wrote: Right, but when it is on Earth it's called abiogenesis, any where else it's called panspermia. Just like a Canadian in Canada is a local but a Canadian in China is foreign. The guy is still a Canadian, the concept hasn't changed, but there is a different term depending on where he is.
If you are admitting that the concept hasn't change (same thing, different term)..so why was it being used as this third alternative to my contention that there are only two options...God, or natural abiogenesis?
Bust Nak wrote: No, the point is, you keep using the wrong term and ignoring the corrections.
Splitting hairs. Labels are irrelevant in this conversation. I could care less what you call it...can you go in a lab and get the results (sentient life from nonlife). No? Well then..moving along.
Bust Nak wrote: Why would that be considered a tight spot?!
Well, back to the original point; you can't call evolution a brute fact if you can't prove that life can originate from nonliving material (if God's existence is negated).

That, is an OBVIOUS tight spot for naturalists..because they would like to hold tight to the theory of evolution...because that is all they have at this point (of God's nonexistence).
Bust Nak wrote: Now you are getting it. Use the right name, depending on whether you are talking about China or Brazil.
"I don't care whether you call it HPV or warts, Doc...can you CURE IT, that's all I care about".

=

"I don't care whether you call it abiogenesis or panspermia, Mr. Scientist...can you go in a lab and produce it, that's all I care about".
Bust Nak wrote: No one is trying to change the concept. Just trying to get you to use the correct term.
And I am trying to get you to go in a lab and produce naturalistic results for alleged naturalistic theories. But that ain't happening.
Bust Nak wrote: No, I don't believe that at all.
Good.
Bust Nak wrote: Incorrect. It was quite clear you had no idea what the issue was. You thought this was an attempt at changing "the concept."
It is/was quite clear that you are splitting hairs..trying to turn non-issues into issues. Panspermia was a concept that never should have been brought up, because it does nothing to address anything that I've said regarding the impossibility of inanimate life originating from nonliving material.
Bust Nak wrote: Yes, and when he is on Mars, he wouldn't be. He would be an alien.
Does his "alienship" mean anything if he has aids? Wouldn't he still be an alien with aids? SMH.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 737 times

Post #117

Post by benchwarmer »

Sorry to jump in on Bust Nak's thread, but I can't help myself :)
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
If you are admitting that the concept hasn't change (same thing, different term)..so why was it being used as this third alternative to my contention that there are only two options...God, or natural abiogenesis?
Actually, there are many options. A natural option (i.e. based on the physical properties of matter that we can observer) or 'something else'. For you to declare 'God' as covering everything else is extremely biased and shows you are not really open minded as you have claimed to be in other replies.

This 'something else' could be:
1) Some entity or entities outside our known universe.
2) Some supernatural entity or entities outside all possible universes.
3) Something we haven't thought of yet.

Your jumping to the conclusion it is a god concept written about in some ancient literature based on no physical evidence is no better than someone claiming speckled pixies did it.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Splitting hairs. Labels are irrelevant in this conversation. I could care less what you call it...can you go in a lab and get the results (sentient life from nonlife). No? Well then..moving along.
Bruh (as you like to say), this is the science and religion subforum. Here more than most, we appreciate you using the correct terms. I myself have been corrected in the past and welcome the learning experience. You seem to enjoy ignoring the corrections and prattling on with terms that are not precise and lead the conversation nowhere.

By the way, I have a feeling scientists will be able to show the process of life originating from raw inorganic materials long before you will be able to show us your God. I mean, come on Ftk, present this God for us to observe and you will win the debate immediately.

Scientists at least admit they can't do this yet, but theists keep 'declaring the truth of their God' unabated with even less evidence that science has produced. At least scientists have produced basic building blocks of life in the lab. You got any preliminary evidence of your god in a lab? No? Didn't think so.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Well, back to the original point; you can't call evolution a brute fact if you can't prove that life can originate from nonliving material (if God's existence is negated).
I'm pretty sure the only person erecting the strawman of calling evolution a 'brute fact' is in fact you and only you. While we can certainly observe the process of evolution happening with our very eyes, scientists are open to discarding the theory for something better if that were to come along based on better data. Got any? No? Didn't think so.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: That, is an OBVIOUS tight spot for naturalists..because they would like to hold tight to the theory of evolution...because that is all they have at this point (of God's nonexistence).
Please point to the part of the ToE that has anything to do with God not existing. We'll wait....

....

Nothing? Didn't think so. More strawmen. You must own a hay field.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: "I don't care whether you call it abiogenesis or panspermia, Mr. Scientist...can you go in a lab and produce it, that's all I care about".
"I don't care whether you call it Yahweh, God, Father, Lord... can you go anywhere and produce Him for us, that's all we care about".
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
And I am trying to get you to go in a lab and produce naturalistic results for alleged naturalistic theories. But that ain't happening.
For evolution, it is happening, you just can't be bothered to go actually check. For origin of life, it's work in progress. Apparently you need all your answers NOW and have decided to use 'god of the gaps' instead of hard evidence.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #118

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 116 by For_The_Kingdom]
Well, back to the original point; you can't call evolution a brute fact if you can't prove that life can originate from nonliving material (if God's existence is negated).

That, is an OBVIOUS tight spot for naturalists..because they would like to hold tight to the theory of evolution...because that is all they have at this point (of God's nonexistence).


It is only a tight spot with your custom definition that evolution somehow depends on how life originated. Since it doesn't, the tight spot you've created does not exist.

You've said this so many times that it is hard to see why you hold tight to an obvious error, then try to use it to defend a position. Evolution does not depend on how life arose (god, abiogenesis, other). Therefore, both of the conjectures quoted above are meaningless.

First, you claim that evolution can't be true if a naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life can't be shown. You're (again) tying evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism, and that is flat out wrong. Evolution does not depend on any specific mechanism for the origin of life, whether natural or supernatural.

Second, you implied that evolution somehow suggests that gods don't exist. Evolution says nothing about the existence (or not) of any god.

So there is no "tight spot" other than a fictitious one created by your erroneous linking of evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #119

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

benchwarmer wrote: Actually, there are many options. A natural option (i.e. based on the physical properties of matter that we can observer) or 'something else'.
There are no options that aren't under the "natural" / "supernatural" umbrellas. None...and there is no point in debating me on this fact.

So either enlighten me on what options are outside of those two, or simply grant my point and lets move along.
benchwarmer wrote: For you to declare 'God' as covering everything else is extremely biased and shows you are not really open minded as you have claimed to be in other replies.
What?
benchwarmer wrote: This 'something else' could be:
1) Some entity or entities outside our known universe.
Which would be either..

1. More nature outside of our known universe.

or..

2. A supernatural element outside of our known universe.

Again, as I stated; either natural, or supernatural.
benchwarmer wrote: 2) Some supernatural entity or entities outside all possible universes.
The supernatural element was already covered. Next.
benchwarmer wrote: 3) Something we haven't thought of yet.
Well, until you can think of a viable third option..the natural/supernatural is all we have.

So instead of refuting my point, you've actually made my point for me. None of your options are outside out those two umbrellas (natural, supernatural).

So please stop wasting my time by trying to quibble with me regarding factual statements that I am making. Please.
benchwarmer wrote: Your jumping to the conclusion it is a god concept written about in some ancient literature
Genetic fallacy. Where I got my conclusion has nothing to do with the truth value of the conclusion.
benchwarmer wrote: based on no physical evidence
My belief system ain't based on physical evidence. Yours is. And you don't even have that much.
benchwarmer wrote: Bruh (as you like to say), this is the science and religion subforum. Here more than most, we appreciate you using the correct terms.
First of all, I never used incorrect terms. So spare me the lectures on what you guys "appreciate".
benchwarmer wrote: I myself have been corrected in the past and welcome the learning experience.
Good for you.
benchwarmer wrote: You seem to enjoy ignoring the corrections and prattling on with terms that are not precise and lead the conversation nowhere.
That is your opinion...and I simply disagree. Moving on..
benchwarmer wrote: By the way, I have a feeling scientists will be able to show the process of life originating from raw inorganic materials long before you will be able to show us your God.
I disagree.
benchwarmer wrote: I mean, come on Ftk, present this God for us to observe and you will win the debate immediately.
I will grab God by the collar and bring it to you, once you go in a lab and get me to see inanimate matter come to life and begin to talk to us.

You first.
benchwarmer wrote: Scientists at least admit they can't do this yet
As if they have a choice. LOL.
benchwarmer wrote: , but theists keep 'declaring the truth of their God' unabated with even less evidence that science has produced.
The fact that sentient life even exists is evidence for God.
benchwarmer wrote: At least scientists have produced basic building blocks of life in the lab.
So you produced the steering wheel of a car. Now, what about the rest of it?
benchwarmer wrote: You got any preliminary evidence of your god in a lab? No? Didn't think so.
I got evidence for God that is convincing enough to me to reject any voodoo scientific theory that is being offered.
benchwarmer wrote: I'm pretty sure the only person erecting the strawman of calling evolution a 'brute fact' is in fact you and only you. While we can certainly observe the process of evolution happening with our very eyes, scientists are open to discarding the theory for something better if that were to come along based on better data. Got any? No? Didn't think so.
Let the record speak for itself: Divine Insight and DrNoGods were passing evolution (macroevolution) off as a brute fact in science and nature...all the while maintaining that God doesn't exist.

Again, if I have to go back and give you the exact quotes and post #'s from both of those gentlemen, will you apologize for making me out to be dishonest?
benchwarmer wrote: Please point to the part of the ToE that has anything to do with God not existing. We'll wait....

....

Nothing? Didn't think so. More strawmen. You must own a hay field.
Um..I am talking specifically about those who claim that evolution is a fact WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD..and I've said this over and over and over again.
benchwarmer wrote: "I don't care whether you call it Yahweh, God, Father, Lord... can you go anywhere and produce Him for us, that's all we care about".
So, you'd like me to use the scientific method to prove the existence of an entity that isn't of nature?

Impossible. Because after all, when I say "produce X", I am saying "go in a lab and actually conduct science".
benchwarmer wrote: For evolution, it is happening, you just can't be bothered to go actually check.
If it is happening, and you know it is happening (as you are stating), then you are contradicting what you said above, when you said..

"While we can certainly observe the process of evolution happening with our very eyes, scientists are open to discarding the theory for something better if that were to come along based on better data."

If you know it happens with absolute confidence, then you shouldn't find any counter-theories/observations that will allow you to discard the theory.

Unless the theory aint so factual after all.
benchwarmer wrote: For origin of life, it's work in progress. Apparently you need all your answers NOW and have decided to use 'god of the gaps' instead of hard evidence.
While you use "nature of the gaps".

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #120

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

DrNoGods wrote: It is only a tight spot with your custom definition that evolution somehow depends on how life originated.
It does.
DrNoGods wrote: Since it doesn't, the tight spot you've created does not exist. You've said this so many times that it is hard to see why you hold tight to an obvious error, then try to use it to defend a position. Evolution does not depend on how life arose (god, abiogenesis, other). Therefore, both of the conjectures quoted above are meaningless.
If God doesn't exist, and abiogenesis is false, how can life evolve? Simple question.
DrNoGods wrote: First, you claim that evolution can't be true if a naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life can't be shown.
No, I am saying that evolution can't be true if God does not exist and abiogenesis is false. It is a logical deduction based on all things considered.
DrNoGods wrote: You're (again) tying evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism, and that is flat out wrong. Evolution does not depend on any specific mechanism for the origin of life, whether natural or supernatural.
Then I will ask again, for the umphteenth time; If God doesn't exist (according to your view), and abiogenesis is false (could be), how can evolution occur?

The answer is; it can't. So it is apparent that evolution is in fact dependent upon ONE of those things being true.
DrNoGods wrote: Second, you implied that evolution somehow suggests that gods don't exist.
Evolution says nothing about the existence (or not) of any god.
This is not only FALSE...but it is demonstrably false. How many times have I stated that evolution is possible should God exist and he decided to use it as his method of creation? How many times have I said that on this thread?

Now, I don't know if you are..

1. just clearly not following along in this discussion
2. having reading comprehension issues
3. or is flat out attacking straw man.

Either way, it is sad.
DrNoGods wrote: So there is no "tight spot" other than a fictitious one created by your erroneous linking of evolution to an origin-of-life mechanism.
SMH. Okey dokey.

Post Reply