Everything that has life, contains intelligence, if not through a brain, through DNA, which is the encoded instruction written into the genes of living organisms. Therefore, if life exists, intelligence must exist also. Intelligence-driven information must already be in place for a single duplicate to be made. That intelligence-driven information is the genetic code of the being. The genetic code is as complex as a book, something that I have never seen write itself.
Though most life must consume life to survive, making a point in itself, even if the first lifeform fed off of only sunlight, it must have operated like a factory to perform photosynthesis, the process by which life turns sunlight into energy by which to function, as we are all little machines/energy producers; and the details of photosynthesis are written into the encoded genetic information that we have been talking about.
But even to say that if all of this came together in the perfect way by chance, why does it start functioning? If I were to take all of the cells of a human heart individually, and bring them together perfectly so that they create the perfect human heart, should I expect it to beat?
Life is a force that has always found a way to survive through multiple extinction level events. It has an intent and a natural driving force that causes it to keep on trying to live. Am I to believe that as the atoms and molecules came together in the perfect way to form RNA, the same way the cells functioned in the human heart example that was just demonstrated, that the ambition to sustain one's own existence is something that naturally occurs when certain things come together randomly.
Put through the atheistic funnel this makes no sense. There was a first life, which was created from nothing, or rather, the chemicals that composed the primordial soup. Any way you put it scientifically, there must be some reverse of the second law of thermodynamics/miracle in order for the current reality that we live in to exist. Such an event would undoubtedly require knowledge.
I would argue that it could be considered an atheistic argument to say that we do not truly exist at all, and this is all some kind of nonphysical thought of another organism or something, because the natural way of things is to fall apart, not come together; but when you look at the vast amount of automated and perfectly harmonious cycles and processes that atheists contend happened randomly and by chance, atheism just looks to me like the true delusion.
But if I’m wrong, tell me why and we can go from there.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
In no way does life violate the second law. If you really think it does, please provide a sample calculation showing that. I think if you try, you will learn quite a bit.
All you said was that it doesn't violate it. I pointed out how it does. Tell me in what way it does not please. After all, the coming together of many things was required for the first organism to live, and in order for it to eat, the instructions must already have been there to tell the organisms body, no matter how small, how to make energy of whatever source it has.
@lukew0480: I pointed out how it does.
You did not. You asserted that life somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics, but you said absolutely nothing about how.
How about you show me that it's not, considering that life is very obviously entropy backwards.
I went to the trouble to do that months ago and posted it below. You know, where I calculated the increase of entropy in the Sun and Earth system.
I'm confused. I thought that this was a site full of intelligent atheists. What kind of atheist website allows Christian theory to go without being addressed? anyone.
17 minutes was too slow for you?
It's not a theory, its yet another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. You can't throw a fucking tambourine around here without it hitting this tiresome theistic cliche you've repeated.
At the end, I say tell me why I'm wrong, not complain about me as a way to avoid addressing the content. Tell me the truth of the matter.
@lukew0480: I'm confused.
Sorry to hear that. I hope we can help you to see more clearly.
There are plenty of intelligent people on this site, but we're all over the world in different time zones. So the answers may take time, but they'll be worth the wait.
@luke(warm) Re: "I'm confused. I thought that this was a site full of intelligent atheists. What kind of atheist website allows Christian theory to go without being addressed?"
Oh, lord... *face palm*... Mercy me.... Interesting how we have to keep explaining this to so many theists who pass through here, but here we go again....
1. Yes, there are absolutely some incredibly intelligent people on this site. Atheist and otherwise. Soooooo, what's your point? As for myself, I may not be incredibly intelligent, but at least I like to think I am just a bit smarter than a box of rocks. However, even if I had the highest IQ ever tested, it has absolutely nothing to do with my being an atheist. The questions you are asking and the main topic of your OP are primarily subjects pertaining to Physics, Biology, Microbiology, and Chemistry. I, for one, am not a scholar in any of those areas. Again, though, none of those have anything to do with my being an atheist. I simply... do... not... believe... in... any... gods. Period. If you have questions you want answered in more depth concerning specific areas of science, then I highly recommend you post your questions and "theories" on the appropriate science site. No doubt there are plenty out there.
2. "Christian Theory"???? What the hell is THAT? Oh, and since it appears to be YOUR personal theory, then it is up to YOU to prove it. Although, I suggest you submit it to and have it reviewed by the appropriate scientific review board, because spouting your half-baked "theories" on here will not - unfortunately - win you any Nobel Peace Prizes.
3. Oh, and welcome to the AR. Hope you brought your arm floaties, by the way. From the looks of it, you're gonna need 'em.
(Okay, NOW to go see what everybody else has posted....)
(Edited to add physics.)
No one has addressed the content that makes perfect sense in the writing. so once again, let me ask, I thought this was a website of intelligent atheists. Not people who just bash and run away because they have no answers of their own.
@lukew0480
In order to get answers you have to learn how to read first. You show writing skills, it seems you can read too, so why not.. do that? Or do you just not read and comprehend anything that does not fit into your particular worldview/agenda?
I may be wasting my time, but a quick reply to your OP.
Early photosynthesis capable life did not necessarily have dna. Really kind of depends on what you consider the definition of "life" to be. Also it is of growing scientific consensus that life on earth may have well began in the dark, deep in the oceans.
Placed in a near perfect body match to said perfect heart? Yes you should expect it to beat. We humans can even print some bodily tissue in a printer and have it be grafted on and accepted by the human body.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? Life was not created from nothing, that is objectively factually wrong. Yes there is entropy. Also we die, (and most all living things eventually die,) because a reproductive cycle is far more efficent than an organism trying to live forever.
This is not an atheist conclusion. You added more meaning to the word atheist then what atheist actually means. Atheist simply means not theist. Scientist on the other hand are working on the finer details of how life arose on earth, so far, they are doing far FAR! better than "god did it" answers, ya know answers based on observable data, testing, reproducing results etc.
But to answer your argument, things do fall apart, and things come together. Gravity pulls things together, (mass attracts mass) and all sort of reactions happen that gives rise to complex elements, and inevitably compounds, mixtures etc. You really ought to revisit basic chemistry 101 before trying to make this argument. 99.99 (repeat the 9's for a while) in the universe is a whole lot of almost nothing, there is your entropy in action, but every once in a great while there is enough mass to kick off gravity which is the fuel that creates tiny little bubbles of stuff that is far more.... then just the cold empty dead of space. You could say life can only arise one in a trillion trillion, and you could be correct, but that would also make life happen, not by chance, but inevitable. Need proof? We are here.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
my bad. take your time. you are right. I'll check back tomorrow. I was just being impatient. My apologies.
The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. ... However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it.
You ever noticed that fiery ball in the sky? Ever noticed how things tend to heat up when it is visible? Now heat and light are energy, so if energy is entering earths atmosphere where life exists and utilises it, that infers it is not a closed system. Thus life is in no way contradicting the second law of thermodynamics.
I'll leave Nyarl explain the complicated mathematics to you.
ΔS = ΔQ/T
For every joule of energy (though sunlight) that is transported from the Sun to the Earth, the Sun gains (approx) the following amount of entropy:
-1/5800 J/K
The Earth gains the following (approx) amount:
1/300 J/K
Therefore the total entropy change per joule transferred is about:
0.003 J/K
-------------------------------------------------------
Now for life on Earth to violate the 2nd law, you will need to show that life decreases the entropy of the system by an amount larger than the result above. It sounds easy, that is such a small number right? The problem is that was the entropy per joule transferred. The Sun transfers a lot of joules. About 10^17 watts. So that is roughly 10^14 J/K of entropy per second. Life has been on the Earth for about 10^17 seconds. So that is an entropy budget of about 10^31 J/K.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Now please present us with your calculation showing that life on Earth has reduced entropy by more than 10^31 J/K. Good luck.
Nerghhh...I'm confused. I thought that this was a site full of intelligent theists. What kind of theist goes onto an atheist website, gets bitch slapped in actual physics and demonstrates that his utter bollocks isnt evidenced? anyone?
That's fine in the case of the sun's entropy. I was referring to the backwards entropy called life. read it over and try again.
"Put through the atheistic funnel this makes no sense. "
Argument from incredulity fallacy.
It's the same tired old wheezy, clapped out theistic pony being put behind it's cart. Trying to assert atheism as a claim, and making assertions to try and reverse the burden of proof In short it's another woeful and tedious argument from ignorance fallacy yet afuckinggain.
If a deity exists demonstrate some objective evidence for it, if a deity created everything demonstrate objective evidence for that, then fully explain how it did this. if you can't do all that then I don't believe a deity exists, therefore I am an atheist, and yet I still don't know how DNA formed. See no claims, beliefs or assertions required to disbelieve in superstitious creations myths, and unevidenced sky fairies wielding unexplained magic.
Next....
You, my friend, just said absolutely nothing. Thank you for wasting my time with this pathetic response.
My post was not a response to yours, the date is next to it, (Mon, 11/19/2018 - 20:36 #19) it's almost a year old champ.
You're clearly too ignorant to bother with, this of course is generally true of all creatards.
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy can never decrease in an isolated system. Do you consider the Earth to be an isolated system?
yes I do, as do I believe is the human body, and the cell, which doesn't break down, but multiplies and creates new life in certain cases. evolution states, according to Richard Dawkins that life started as something simple and moved on to be very complex. This is the opposite of entropy.
THE EARTH AND LIFE ARE NOT ENCLOSED FUCKING SYSTEMS FFS! Energy is added to those systems, how fucking hard is that to understand, even for a creatard?
Who is this moron?
Another creatard, parroting their creationist BS, sigh, kill me now.
Re: Luke - "...yes I do, as do I believe is the human body, and the cell,"
*** Reply moved to end of thread***
Hells bells this is hilarious. So no heat energy enters the Earth's atmosphere, or the human, from outside? Christ almighty, this is how dumb creationism makes people.
How stupid are creationists? I'm sitting here reading a creationist tell us the human body is an isolated system, while I'm cramming a sandwich and pouring ice tea into my body.
Witchcraft!!!!! Witchcraft I tell thee!!!!
FYI for the creationists:
When heat flows from part A in a system to part B in a system, the change in entropy of part A is negative (it goes down), and the change of entropy of part B is positive (it goes up). The positive entropy gained (by part B) is larger than the entropy loss (of part A), by postulate (which I can explain if someone requests that).
So in every exchange of heat, entropy actually goes down in part of the system (but the total goes up for the combined system); IF you then foolishly don't consider all the parts of the system you might find yourself thinking the total entropy went down; like the creationist in this thread.
Pages