Johnny: what is a 'spiritual being' ?

[Johnny]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

No Johnny, the length of your list of quotes makes no difference at all.

 

That's because the thermodynamic foundation they rest upon cannot support them.

 

Your thermodynamic argument relies on a foundation of imaginary things.

 

Therefore, whatever rests on that foundation (quotes, evidence, science, etc.) is irrelevant.

 

Get the foundations of your own house in order.

Oh, look, it's the joke you again pretending to be out for truth and justice. Go put on your act with someone else. You don't apologize for nothing. You can spread lies all you want and feel you don't have to answer for it.

-------

"How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny?'

Times a whole lot. Who can blame you trying to hide you can't read the difference between "evidence" and "science"? That is something to be embarrassed about. Then again, you put other things to be embarrassed about but you just go on as if nothing happened. You give a quote about Behe that is not the truth. Sure, he said that but to not give the whole story behind it was REALLY low. 

 

Then you go lecturing me on what science does and you must have felt so proud listing those sites never even bothering to look at what I actually wrote. 

 

What I wrote, "Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability,  falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice."

 

What you claimed I wrote is something I didn't write...

 

You, "I've demonstrated that science does not prove things."

 

Science is the study of the natural world through the collection and analysis of empirical data. It's a process that leads us to a better understanding of the world. A scientific investigation is how scientists use the scientific method to collect the data and evidence that they plan to analyze.

 

Evidence is a body of facts and information showing whether a hypothesis is true or untrue.

 

from: https://study.com/academy/lesson/scientific-investigations-data-evidence-reasoning.html

 

So evidence IS used to show what is TRUE and UNTRUE.

 

YOU put in "science" where I put "evidence."

 

AGAIN, Me, "Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability,  falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice."

-----

You sure like to lie....

 

Remember what you gave another member and I pointed it out but you will not touch it....

 

You.....I'd like to draw your attention to the example of a scientist who re-interprets scientific evidence as he sees fit, so that it only supports what he feels it must.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

 

Michael Behe is a biochemist and was called to the stand in the 2005 case of Dover versus Kitzmiller.

 

He is an advocate of Intelligent Design theory.

 

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

You are well aware of the evidence supporting the LCDM model, but I submit that like Behe, you do not find it "good enough" to persuade you from your long-held beliefs.

 

Therefore, I must ask you another question, Pantheory.

 

Will any amount of evidence for the LCDM model ever be "good enough" for you?

 

(Please note that this question carries no implication or inference of my support for the LCDM model.  I have no axe to grind here.  I neither support it nor reject it.)

 

Please answer the question succinctly and directly.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

-------

The real story.....

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/07/ken_millers_only_a_theory_atta_1/

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Oh, so you won't accept anything that hasn't been observed, Johnny?

 

Well, here's where your quotes about thermodynamics come from.

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Cx0QPbyFQ3MC&pg=PA64&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Advanced Engineering Chemistry by Manas Senapati.

 

https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Fishbane-Physics-for-Scientists-and-Engineers-Ch-1-40-3rd-Edition/PGM2813317.html

Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Fishbane, Gasiorowicz and Thornton.

 

https://lavelle.chem.ucla.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26508

Jason Liu, Jaewoo Jo and Morgan Baxter.

 

Can you please confirm that all of these people have observed the universe to be an isolated thermodynamic system?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, Johnny said:

Oh, look, it's the joke you again pretending to be out for truth and justice. Go put on your act with someone else. You don't apologize for nothing. You can spread lies all you want and feel you don't have to answer for it.

-------

"How do you observe an imaginary thing, Johnny?'

Times a whole lot. Who can blame you trying to hide you can't read the difference between "evidence" and "science"? That is something to be embarrassed about. Then again, you put other things to be embarrassed about but you just go on as if nothing happened. You give a quote about Behe that is not the truth. Sure, he said that but to not give the whole story behind it was REALLY low. 

 

Then you go lecturing me on what science does and you must have felt so proud listing those sites never even bothering to look at what I actually wrote. 

 

What I wrote, "Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability,  falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice."

 

What you claimed I wrote is something I didn't write...

 

You, "I've demonstrated that science does not prove things."

 

Science is the study of the natural world through the collection and analysis of empirical data. It's a process that leads us to a better understanding of the world. A scientific investigation is how scientists use the scientific method to collect the data and evidence that they plan to analyze.

 

Evidence is a body of facts and information showing whether a hypothesis is true or untrue.

 

from: https://study.com/academy/lesson/scientific-investigations-data-evidence-reasoning.html

 

So evidence IS used to show what is TRUE and UNTRUE.

 

YOU put in "science" where I put "evidence."

 

AGAIN, Me, "Well, do you expect me to apologize for what the evidence proves? Wow, so the evidence done by experimentation that followed repeatability,  falsification, and observation, was not proof life only comes from life. It was CLEAR, but somehow I'm not supposed to say it proved anything. The laughs I get in this forum are so nice."

-----

You sure like to lie....

 

Remember what you gave another member and I pointed it out but you will not touch it....

 

You.....I'd like to draw your attention to the example of a scientist who re-interprets scientific evidence as he sees fit, so that it only supports what he feels it must.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

 

Michael Behe is a biochemist and was called to the stand in the 2005 case of Dover versus Kitzmiller.

 

He is an advocate of Intelligent Design theory.

 

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

You are well aware of the evidence supporting the LCDM model, but I submit that like Behe, you do not find it "good enough" to persuade you from your long-held beliefs.

 

Therefore, I must ask you another question, Pantheory.

 

Will any amount of evidence for the LCDM model ever be "good enough" for you?

 

(Please note that this question carries no implication or inference of my support for the LCDM model.  I have no axe to grind here.  I neither support it nor reject it.)

 

Please answer the question succinctly and directly.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

-------

The real story.....

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/07/ken_millers_only_a_theory_atta_1/

 

 

 

These are your words Johnny, not mine.

 

"If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

Let me help you out by making your own words big enough for you to see clearly.

 

"If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that 

little imaginary sphere 

the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

Not big enough?  You still can't see what you wrote?  Ok then...

 

"If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that 

little imaginary sphere 

the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:

 

This is as big as I can go, Johnny.

 

little

imaginary

sphere 

 

Recognize your own words?

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, Johnny said:

Great, now supply evidence that happened AND how creation happened too to give you something that allows you for your Panspermia theory.

 

Give SCIENCE that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, that has evidence for creation and life happening on its own. I've said various times already, science fiction is not science. 

 

Just saying "Panspermia theory" really does not meet the science I stated. I gave science to meet those qualifications so you do the same. 

 

Hi again Johnny,

 

Of course all abiogenic proposals are hypotheses, not theory. To become even a full fledged hypothesis they have to be observable or testable in some way, which none of these abiogenic proposals can do. Falsifiable relates primarily to theory.  Yes, we are still in the early stages of abiogenic speculations and proposals. But all of these proposals are logical possibilities IMO.

 

Since roughly half of the scientists in America call themselves Christians, many would agree that the Book of Genesis can explain the creation of the first life. Archeologists believe the Book of Genesis was written about the filth or sixth century  BC.

Book of Genesis - Wikipedia

The Book of Genesis, Noah's Ark, and the Book of Revelation are not science fiction, they are entirely falsifiable fiction that I believe any intelligent person that has even a little bit of science knowledge would realize. I am a research scientist and have bet my life and immortal soul against a six pack of beer that there is no truth to Christianity, or any religion. But no human, angel or demon has ever delivered on my bet. 

 

I also was an engineer for 20+ years.  I am 79 years old now. I really don't want you to do or think anything that would not make you happier, so to lose your faith now would likely not be a good thing. But I do like people to think logically, which I realize you are really trying to do. And realize that science is a method only, not based upon theories or laws, which are mainstream proposals which can change over time.

 

So best of luck and cheers to you.

 

[Wertbag]

As an aside, abiogenesis is an ongoing field of current study.  There are teams around the world, from dozens of different universities and research institutes, working at the question from different angles.  Some of the fascinating articles I've found related to experiments within the last decade:

 

2013 - Cornell University study shows clay could be a protecting environment for early building blocks of life:

Clay may have been birthplace of life on Earth, new study suggests -- ScienceDaily 

 

2015 - University of Cambridge study shows a single reaction can create nucleic acid, amino acids and lipids simultaneously using common chemicals and UV light:

Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum | Science | AAAS

 

2019 - Georgia Institute of Technology study shows in an environment of mixed amino acids, the organic ones used to create life are selected in favor of those that do not:

Pre-life building blocks spontaneously align in evolutionary experiment -- ScienceDaily

 

2019 - Scripps Research Institute study shows that a heating and drying cycle added to amino acids causes the linking we see in life.  This would match a tidal environment:

A chemical clue to how life started on Earth: Every living thing stems from the same limited set of 20 amino acids, and now scientists may know why -- ScienceDaily

 

2019 - University of London study shows its possible to create peptides in a natural environment without the need of amino acids:

Researchers May Have Found the Missing Piece of Evidence that Explains the Origins of Life - Universe Today

 

2020 - Kyushu University study shows an easy way to generate amino acids.  Placing a common catalyst and a source of nitrogen, in a water-based solution and running electricity through it led to synthesis of seven amino acids:

To make amino acids, just add electricity -- ScienceDaily

 

2022 - Two studies, one from the University of Tokyo and one from the University of Munich, show RNA replication and evolution, as well as additional strengthening of RNA strands by unused RNA structure materials:

A pair of experiments reveal new details regarding the origin of life on Earth - World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org)

 

So any claim that abiogenesis is impossible or that it is settled scientifically is clearly false.  The experts in the field believe it is plausible and that further research will continue advancing us towards the answers we seek.

[Joshpantera]

On 7/8/2022 at 5:02 PM, Johnny said:

I'm still waiting for SCIENCE that is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, that has evidence for creation and life happening on its own. I've said various times already, science fiction is not science. 

 

Yes, science fiction is not science. 

 

1) That's why Genesis 1 is not science. That's why theories of "God did it" is not science. Creation myths are the first claims to be tossed aside, of course, because mythology is not literal and has nothing to do with the facts of how life actually emerged. 

 

2) Further, there is no science that tells us how life began. There are theories on how it could have happened. But that's it. 

 

3) The mystery of origins is an ongoing mystery. No one has solved it yet. That's where the truth is located. No one knows. The truth is agnostic. Not theistic. And not scientific, at least not yet.

 

If you already knew the truth, then you wouldn't have posted the above quote, you would have already known the bottom-line answer to the question. Which reveals to everyone who does know the answer, that you're clearly not there yet. And haven't a clue where any of this leads. 

[Joshpantera]

On 7/8/2022 at 9:56 AM, Johnny said:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

 

So tell me with what I wrote I overestimated my ability. Tell me how the law of biogenesis along with the evidence I supplied was overestimated and were somehow not correct. Tell me how the conclusions are not correct. You conveniently and purposely left those parts out because you don't like to reason. YOU overestimated YOUR ability. 

 

You're free to copy and paste any reply that defeated the law of bigenesis. You're free to give ANY site that you see is reasonable to show that life did come about on its own all by natural means. It's rather laughable (like so many replies) that you toss all the evidence away with your hilarious...."Another "Dunning-Kruegger Effect" apologist..."

 

Has the law of biogenesis been disproven or downgraded to a theory? - Quora

 

Is 'The Law of Biogenesis' really a 'Law' or just a 'Hypothesis'?

"It’s neither a law nor an hypothesis. It’s just an assertion, and it’s quite obviously wrong.

 

We already know that under conditions simple enough to reproduce in a high school chemistry lab, lipids form microspheres that begin replicating due only to chemistry. These are essentially stripped down cell membranes with no contents. It doesn’t take a genius to see how on an otherwise sterile planet, they would eventually incorporate stabilizing molecules and other protocellular components.

We already know at least two ways that RNA can spontaneously form.

We already know that amino acids form—well…everywhere. They rain down on us from space by the ton.

We don’t yet know all the details of how chemical evolution can lead to life, and we will never know the exact steps it took on Earth, but it clearly isn’t impossible. In fact, the wise bet is on abiogenesis being ubiquitous—even inevitable wherever conditions permit—like suds."

 

 

Johnny boy, you're way past revealing yourself to everyone as low ability at the topics of your own choice, among others. Just read the post above if this still seems mysterious to you. You fudged that one up incredibly. The gigs up, you're nowhere near as intelligent as you assume. Everyone but you is well aware of it. 

 

 

It's up to you and you alone to put in the work that will have to go into changing that. And it won't happen over night. You will have to go off into some deep introspection and spend years trying to tighten up your mental abilities and game if you want to successfully debate with people who are this much more experienced in science and religion than you are at present. 

 

Good luck! 

[midniterider]

Thanks Josh.

 

Christians assign a ridiculous amount of difficulty required to go from non-life to life because God's plan! And I think they also like to assume an instant on-off switch (a biblical, let there be light) between non-life and life. But as it goes with evolution, maybe chemicals went thru many different stages of 'almost-life' over millions of years before they got to the point of measurable life. 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, midniterider said:

Thanks Josh.

 

Christians assign a ridiculous amount of difficulty required to go from non-life to life because God's plan! And I think they also like to assume an instant on-off switch (a biblical, let there be light) between non-life and life. But as it goes with evolution, maybe chemicals went thru many different stages of 'almost-life' over millions of years before they got to the point of measurable life. 

 

 

 

 

In these deeper debates I'm referring to, like awareness ex nihilo versus awareness all along, it's come up that life can factor into those debates.

 

If reality is a field of subjectivity, a mind at large, and we exist within that, and we are nothing more than that at the very bottom, then the question of how life factors in pop's up.

 

Would the field of subjectivity be considered alive? If yes, then neither life nor awareness would pop up ex nihilo. The primitive seeds of what we see as life and awareness would always be there in some way, ever-present, and ever-existing. This is the sort of stuff we get into those philosophical Idealism groups. And the apologists are of a much higher caliber, as far as that goes. 

 

The main thing is that if any of this philosophical speculation were the case, and demonstrably true, how would that effect the argument of the origins of life? 

 

It comes down to pantheistic or what some would nuance as panentheistic conclusions. And in doing so, thwart both materialistic science and traditional monotheistic religion in one fell swoop!

 

It comes in third party to the dualistic theist versus materialistic atheist debate. And flies over the heads of the first two parties in so doing, because it's going beyond what the first two seem to have the ability to conceive of and comprehend. Truth seeking and trying to penetrate the nature of reality is a serious tricky business! Ultimately, an impossibility probably. Though we trudge along anyways pushing the limits. 

 

Johnny, of course, loses regardless. His ideas about eternal life have to transform from dualistic monotheism into monist idealism pantheism in order to get anywhere. Which then wrecks the christian angle. 

 

This is what I mean by, "You ain't gonna like it when you get there, Johnny boy!" 

 

The thing he's so fervently fighting for will be the undoing of his own position if we simply follow through with the associated logic. Which goes to non-dual, pantheistic idealism. 

 

 

[Johnny]

19 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Oh, so you won't accept anything that hasn't been observed, Johnny?

 

Well, here's where your quotes about thermodynamics come from.

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Cx0QPbyFQ3MC&pg=PA64&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Advanced Engineering Chemistry by Manas Senapati.

 

https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Fishbane-Physics-for-Scientists-and-Engineers-Ch-1-40-3rd-Edition/PGM2813317.html

Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Fishbane, Gasiorowicz and Thornton.

 

https://lavelle.chem.ucla.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26508

Jason Liu, Jaewoo Jo and Morgan Baxter.

 

Can you please confirm that all of these people have observed the universe to be an isolated thermodynamic system?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I showed what a joke you are and you will go on ignoring it. You don't acknowledge your deceit and as I wrote already, go pretend with others you are looking to find truth.

[Joshpantera]

4 minutes ago, Johnny said:

I showed what a joke you are and you will go on ignoring it. You don't acknowledge your deceit and as I wrote already, go pretend with others you are looking to find truth.

 

You've done no such thing. 

 

In fact, the joke is firmly on you right now. You've been thoroughly debunked and refuted. Now what? You have one more chance to try and respond to your debunking / refutation. Choose wisely! 

[Johnny]

18 hours ago, pantheory said:

But all of these proposals are logical possibilities IMO.

Oh, but you just can't provide the evidence for how they are logical and should come across as reasonable to abandon the law of biogenesis. 

 

18 hours ago, pantheory said:

I really don't want you to do or think anything that would not make you happier, so to lose your faith now would likely not be a good thing. But I do like people to think logically, which I realize you are really trying to do. And realize that science is a method only, not based upon theories or laws, which are mainstream proposals which can change over time.

How can I lose my faith? All I get is no evidence to change the evidence I see. 

 

"...which are mainstream proposals which can change over time."

 

What you're waiting on is the laws of nature, including the law of biogenesis, will somehow be proven wrong at some point so your fairytale may come true. That is what you put your faith in. The so be it. Have at it. 

[Johnny]

19 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Has the law of biogenesis been disproven or downgraded to a theory? - Quora 

Is 'The Law of Biogenesis' really a 'Law' or just a 'Hypothesis'?

"It’s neither a law nor an hypothesis. It’s just an assertion, and it’s quite obviously wrong.

 

We already know that under conditions simple enough to reproduce in a high school chemistry lab, lipids form microspheres that begin replicating due only to chemistry. These are essentially stripped down cell membranes with no contents. It doesn’t take a genius to see how on an otherwise sterile planet, they would eventually incorporate stabilizing molecules and other protocellular components.

We already know at least two ways that RNA can spontaneously form.

We already know that amino acids form—well…everywhere. They rain down on us from space by the ton.

We don’t yet know all the details of how chemical evolution can lead to life, and we will never know the exact steps it took on Earth, but it clearly isn’t impossible. In fact, the wise bet is on abiogenesis being ubiquitous—even inevitable wherever conditions permit—like suds."

 

 

Where did this disprove the law of biogenesis? 

 

This was your FIRST bit of evidence given. So take the points I brought up already that this specifically addressed them to show what I gave is wrong, that following the scientific method, life did indeed come about naturally. 

 

YOU put this as your FIRST bit of evidence so back it up. Oh, but you can't so you resort to such silly means.

[Joshpantera]

19 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Is 'The Law of Biogenesis' really a 'Law' or just a 'Hypothesis'?

"It’s neither a law nor an hypothesis. It’s just an assertion, and it’s quite obviously wrong.

 

We already know that under conditions simple enough to reproduce in a high school chemistry lab, lipids form microspheres that begin replicating due only to chemistry. These are essentially stripped down cell membranes with no contents. It doesn’t take a genius to see how on an otherwise sterile planet, they would eventually incorporate stabilizing molecules and other protocellular components.

We already know at least two ways that RNA can spontaneously form.

We already know that amino acids form—well…everywhere. They rain down on us from space by the ton.

We don’t yet know all the details of how chemical evolution can lead to life, and we will never know the exact steps it took on Earth, but it clearly isn’t impossible. In fact, the wise bet is on abiogenesis being ubiquitous—even inevitable wherever conditions permit—like suds."

 

5 hours ago, Johnny said:

Where did this disprove the law of biogenesis? 

 

That's an odd choice of last word, but I'll let you have it, Johnny! 

 

Try and spend some time getting caught up on how the law of biogenesis is NOT a law, or a theory, just an assertion. And a demonstrably 'incorrect assertion' at that!

 

I don't expect you to immediately just get it. Obviously, you haven't taken the time to try and register and digest the fact that biogenesis isn't even a law to begin with, you're completely wrong from the very outset!

 

You'll need to spend some more time thinking about all of this until it possibly registers....