i think it's funny how my thermodynamics point was completely ignored. the universe is a closed system which means energy from the sun is completely destructive. the only place we have found to be an open system is our own earth. so IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM THAT CAUSES NOTHING BUT DESTRUCTION TO CREATE WHAT IS NECCISSARY TO MAKE IT AN OPEN SYSTEM? and if so is a closed system truly closed if it can create life? and how is life more likely for life to form in a closed system than in an open one? why don't we make an experiment. take a bunch of amino acids, put them in a container and see if life will ever form out of that flask. oh it's that simple to prove the origin of life theory? why do you think they can't do this? even if you have all the assembled protiens in a flask and maybe some water it won't create life.

(December 20, 2011 at 9:26 am)chipan Wrote: i think it's funny how my thermodynamics point was completely ignored. the universe is a closed system which means energy from the sun is completely destructive. the only place we have found to be an open system is our own earth. so IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM THAT CAUSES NOTHING BUT DESTRUCTION TO CREATE WHAT IS NECCISSARY TO MAKE IT AN OPEN SYSTEM? and if so is a closed system truly closed if it can create life? and how is life more likely for life to form in a closed system than in an open one? why don't we make an experiment. take a bunch of amino acids, put them in a container and see if life will ever form out of that flask. oh it's that simple to prove the origin of life theory? why do you think they can't do this? even if you have all the assembled protiens in a flask and maybe some water it won't create life.

How do you know? Life took over a billion years to take hold. A billion fucking years, not a couple of days in a jar.

The rest of your post - meaningless pseudo scientific waffle not worthy of an answer - which is why no one answered it.

It wasn't ignored, it was dismissed due to being irrelevant (and it was explained to you why this was so, along with a wiki link for entropy), mostly because you don't know what you're talking about. Your proteins in a jar is monsters and peanut butter, and has been dealt with already (and a wiki link for abiogenesis was also included). You're repeating yourself. Repetition does not add weight to claims. You're really contributing a great deal to the thread title with all of this. I'm not a physicist, or a biologist, and yet completely dismissing every single claim you've made thus far on the grounds of ignorance is easy as pie. So just how strong are these arguments?

(December 20, 2011 at 9:26 am)chipan Wrote: i think it's funny how my thermodynamics point was completely ignored. the universe is a closed system which means energy from the sun is completely destructive. the only place we have found to be an open system is our own earth. so IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A CLOSED SYSTEM THAT CAUSES NOTHING BUT DESTRUCTION TO CREATE WHAT IS NECCISSARY TO MAKE IT AN OPEN SYSTEM? and if so is a closed system truly closed if it can create life?

You're confusing properties of the system as a whole with properties of a small portion of the system. Don't do that, please.

If we lock you in a room and throw away the key, that probably won't stop you from spewing verbal diarrhea. Hmmkay?

(December 20, 2011 at 9:26 am)chipan Wrote: and how is life more likely for life to form in a closed system than in an open one? why don't we make an experiment. take a bunch of amino acids, put them in a container and see if life will ever form out of that flask. oh it's that simple to prove the origin of life theory? why do you think they can't do this? even if you have all the assembled protiens in a flask and maybe some water it won't create life.

How about we all smash our faces on the keyboard for a few seconds and see if that produces a Bible? Would that experiment prove to you that a Bible cannot be written?

oh sorry here's a quote from your source
"when Alexander Oparin reasoned that atmospheric oxygen prevents the synthesis of certain organic compounds that are necessary building blocks for the evolution of life. In his The Origin of Life,[18][19] Oparin proposed that the "spontaneous generation of life" that had been attacked by Louis Pasteur did in fact occur once, but was now impossible because the conditions found on the early earth had changed,"

this is wrong on so many levels idk where to begin. well first off the point where you, rhythm, daid my spontaneous generation statement was total bs and mistaking it as spontaneous REgeneration was unjustified as it is listed right here. spontaneous generation is life coming from nonliving material and has never been observed and Alexander Oparin reasoned, b/c it does not occure it must not be possible in our current atmosphere. that's bassically saying it must be possible since God is stupid so lets just say our atsmophere did not have oxygen when it developed. does that really sound like science? the only reason to believe the early earth's atsmophere was methane based and not oxygen based is b/c spontaneous generation cannot occure in an oxygen based atmosphere.not to mention w/o oxygen there's no ozone and nothing to protect amonia from harmful radiation that would be blocked by the ozone layer which it cannot evolve. and many things in that predicted atmosphere are toxic to life. hmmm.... not to mention the experiment only produced 2 of the amino acids and they wouldn't even bond b/c of the eliments. amino acids unbond in water faster than they bond and most of earth is filled of water. in the experiment they filtered out the product which is not realistic at all. and not to mention brawnian motion is going to drive the amino acids away from eachother not put them together.

It's like reading the scribblings of a 7 year old, but just to decipher one little bit, where you said "spontaneous generation is life coming from nonliving material and has never been observed" - it doesn't matter if it has never been observed, before life there was nothing, therefore we HAD to have came initially from non living material, there is no other way. Whether you believe god or not.

"it doesn't matter if it has never been observed, before life there was nothing, therefore we HAD to have came initially from non living material, there is no other way. Whether you believe god or not."

well it doesn't matter? science is all about what we can abserve in nature and to say it doesn't matter is to say the principle of sciences don't matter. yes, god or not matter had to come from non living material but the difference is whether it was constructed or just fell into place neither of which can be observed which means to say those things happen is religion not science

Boy, his point really flew over your head, huh?

"How about we all smash our faces on the keyboard for a few seconds and see if that produces a Bible? Would that experiment prove to you that a Bible cannot be written?"

nope it just proves that it was written by someone that knew the language not produced randomly by something spitting inc (and btw that smashing keyboard is not only a rediculous metiphore but not an applicable one since writing is not the same as typing)

---

"I'm not a physicist, or a biologist, and yet completely dismissing every single claim you've made thus far on the grounds of ignorance is easy as pie. So just how strong are these arguments?"

i'm not anything of those either so that argument is not applicable you cannot make excuses, second most everything i've said is true especially about the fact that science not observed is speculation and believing in this speculation is faith not evidence

Quote:science is all about what we can abserve in nature

That would be "observe" and it was true in Aristotle's day but by the 17th century science had moved on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History


Try to catch up with the rest of the world, will you.