Alien Life? You better hope God exists!

[Boss]

So what is the entropy of a stable atom?????

We don't know the answer because Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

You see, you just throw out concepts you understand nothing about trying to sound authoritative when you pontificate.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle regarding atoms says the more accurately you know the position of an electron, the less accurately you know its direction. It has NOTHING to do with entropy.
Try to lie again.

No, it's position and momentum... and if you can't know those, you can't measure the absolute value of entropy.

 

[edthecynic]

So what is the entropy of a stable atom?????

We don't know the answer because Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

You see, you just throw out concepts you understand nothing about trying to sound authoritative when you pontificate.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle regarding atoms says the more accurately you know the position of an electron, the less accurately you know its direction. It has NOTHING to do with entropy.
Try to lie again.

No, it's position and momentum... and if you can't know those, you can't measure the absolute value of entropy.

Position and momentum have NOTHING to do with entropy.
Admit it you know nothing about entropy or the uncertainty principle.

Momentum equals mass times velocity, the mass of an electron is known and the velocity of an electron for each orbital is known. So what is so uncertain about the momentum of an electron????

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Fundamentally, at some point, some elements combined to form molecules that have different properties than their individual atoms. And those molecules attracted more elements and molecules based on new and newer properties, to form even more complex molecules. Eventually that molecule may separate due to instability when it gets to a certain size/length. And then starts the process over again, this time 2x.

This is something that should happen by pure chance, given how many atoms there are on the Earth and the infinite combinations provided. We all know how certain atoms naturally combine to form more complex molecules with different properties, like water. It does not need to happen everywhere spontaneously. Just in one spot with one teeny tiny molecule that will split and replicate itself again, and then split again, etc... This may be happening constantly to this day. As it spreads, it will create a need for more atomic resources as it uses the neighboring ones. When the resources start to dwindle, mutations in some of these molecules will allow one of them to start using more diverse resources to help them continue to combine and replicate. And so on, and so on, and so on. Until we get to a very complex molecule like RNA/DNA. This is evolution and natural selection.

Whether you consider replicating molecules to be "life", is up to you and your beliefs. If you do, then it should happen naturally given enough opportunity, and we are already making great strides on replicating the process. And AI will eventually create a brand new version of life in that sense. If you don't consider replicating molecules as life, then you have a definition of life that is based on something else, possibly more supernatural. If so, what is your prerequisite for the definition of "life"?

Short Sharp Science: Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule

This is a theory of "spontaneous generation" and it has been debunked for more than a century. It is precisely what scientists used to believe before we discovered RNA/DNA.

The fact remains, science has never originated life from inorganic materials. It is a telling and fascinating stretch that you are going to propose AI in this argument, as if that is a man-made creation of life. It speaks to how pathetically desperate your failure of an argument has become. AI is not a living organism. Sorry cyborgs!

How has spontaneous generation been debunked?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

How has spontaneous generation been debunked?

what was disproven was that life evolved from an existing matrix, a stone turning into a bird - not that life could not originate from an as yet undefined association of sympathetic substances combined by a catalytic event.

 

[RWS]

Fundamentally, at some point, some elements combined to form molecules that have different properties than their individual atoms. And those molecules attracted more elements and molecules based on new and newer properties, to form even more complex molecules. Eventually that molecule may separate due to instability when it gets to a certain size/length. And then starts the process over again, this time 2x.

This is something that should happen by pure chance, given how many atoms there are on the Earth and the infinite combinations provided. We all know how certain atoms naturally combine to form more complex molecules with different properties, like water. It does not need to happen everywhere spontaneously. Just in one spot with one teeny tiny molecule that will split and replicate itself again, and then split again, etc... This may be happening constantly to this day. As it spreads, it will create a need for more atomic resources as it uses the neighboring ones. When the resources start to dwindle, mutations in some of these molecules will allow one of them to start using more diverse resources to help them continue to combine and replicate. And so on, and so on, and so on. Until we get to a very complex molecule like RNA/DNA. This is evolution and natural selection.

Whether you consider replicating molecules to be "life", is up to you and your beliefs. If you do, then it should happen naturally given enough opportunity, and we are already making great strides on replicating the process. And AI will eventually create a brand new version of life in that sense. If you don't consider replicating molecules as life, then you have a definition of life that is based on something else, possibly more supernatural. If so, what is your prerequisite for the definition of "life"?

Short Sharp Science: Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule

This is a theory of "spontaneous generation" and it has been debunked for more than a century. It is precisely what scientists used to believe before we discovered RNA/DNA.

The fact remains, science has never originated life from inorganic materials. It is a telling and fascinating stretch that you are going to propose AI in this argument, as if that is a man-made creation of life. It speaks to how pathetically desperate your failure of an argument has become. AI is not a living organism. Sorry cyborgs!

Again, what is "life" to you? If Is it a self-replicating molecule, or something more supernatural?

It is telling that you dismissed everything I said and focused on the idea that AI will eventually be able to replicate itself without human help. That will eventually happen. But that is not the point of the post. The point is that chemistry creates molecules from inorganic materials without need for a higher intelligence. And those molecules can continue to grow and become more complex, by themselves.

There is no need for a "boss" to assemble the stuff necessary for complex molecules. It just happens naturally. Amino acids are abundant in the solar system and are the building blocks for RNA to form and start replicating. And the amino acids assembled themselves by themselves. No "boss" or "god" instructed them to assemble. There is no "spontaneous generation" in science.

Although you believe in "spontaneous generation" by a higher intelligence. Based on our prior conversations, I know that you do. You argue for the "god theory", and at the same time say you don't believe in god, or religion. You just like to argue a random point, whether you believe it or not, and then insult anyone who says differently and try to win that argument, for your own personal satisfaction...

You throw out science when it contradicts the argument you are proposing at the moment. But use science when it helps you at the moment. And sometimes you use the same science that you debunked for your purposes later in the thread or on another. I get that it's a game to you, but you're not providing any useful information, except to insult everybody that disagrees with your argument of the day.

 

[Boss]

The point is that chemistry creates molecules from inorganic materials without need for a higher intelligence. And those molecules can continue to grow and become more complex, by themselves.

False.

 

[Boss]

How has spontaneous generation been debunked?

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.

Pasteur invented the swan-necked flask to create an environment known not to grow microorganisms. After sterilizing a nutrient broth in these flasks, he removed the swan necks of the controls. Microorganisms grew only in the controls, refuting spontaneous generation.[1]

 

[Boss]

Again, what is "life" to you? If Is it a self-replicating molecule, or something more supernatural?

Life is living organisms. Life doesn't come from inorganic material. Pasteur proved this.

I am absolutely floored at the level of science illiteracy happening in this thread!

 

[Boss]

So what is the entropy of a stable atom?????

We don't know the answer because Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

You see, you just throw out concepts you understand nothing about trying to sound authoritative when you pontificate.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle regarding atoms says the more accurately you know the position of an electron, the less accurately you know its direction. It has NOTHING to do with entropy.
Try to lie again.

No, it's position and momentum... and if you can't know those, you can't measure the absolute value of entropy.

Position and momentum have NOTHING to do with entropy.
Admit it you know nothing about entropy or the uncertainty principle.

Momentum equals mass times velocity, the mass of an electron is known and the velocity of an electron for each orbital is known. So what is so uncertain about the momentum of an electron????

Fuuuuuuck! Okay, I give up! You WIN! You've convinced me! Entropy can equal zero, therefore, the physical universe is eternal and everlasting in a pristine godlike state of divinity! God is the everlasting universe and the everlasting universe is God! BRAVO!

I didn't give you a winner award because I think you richly deserve a much higher award... maybe even some sort of hat or crown?

 

[Penelope]

I'm so happy the origin of life has finally been determined in this thread.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

How has spontaneous generation been debunked?

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.

Pasteur invented the swan-necked flask to create an environment known not to grow microorganisms. After sterilizing a nutrient broth in these flasks, he removed the swan necks of the controls. Microorganisms grew only in the controls, refuting spontaneous generation.[1]

And I have responded to you on this before. Pasteur's experiment in no way proves life could not have formed spontaneously here on earth four billion years ago. Pasteur's experiment took place in a controlled environment with a pre-made broth and took place over several weeks. The formation of life here on earth had an unlimited variety of possible places, from hot thermal vents to tide pools, and took place over 100 million years. Are you bright enough to understand the difference?

 

[G.T.]

So what is the entropy of a stable atom?????

We don't know the answer because Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

You see, you just throw out concepts you understand nothing about trying to sound authoritative when you pontificate.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle regarding atoms says the more accurately you know the position of an electron, the less accurately you know its direction. It has NOTHING to do with entropy.
Try to lie again.

No, it's position and momentum... and if you can't know those, you can't measure the absolute value of entropy.

Position and momentum have NOTHING to do with entropy.
Admit it you know nothing about entropy or the uncertainty principle.

Momentum equals mass times velocity, the mass of an electron is known and the velocity of an electron for each orbital is known. So what is so uncertain about the momentum of an electron????

Fuuuuuuck! Okay, I give up! You WIN! You've convinced me! Entropy can equal zero, therefore, the physical universe is eternal and everlasting in a pristine godlike state of divinity! God is the everlasting universe and the everlasting universe is God! BRAVO!

I didn't give you a winner award because I think you richly deserve a much higher award... maybe even some sort of hat or crown?

What you arbitrarily label divinity isn't very reasoned or rational.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Again, what is "life" to you? If Is it a self-replicating molecule, or something more supernatural?

Life is living organisms. Life doesn't come from inorganic material. Pasteur proved this.

I am absolutely floored at the level of science illiteracy happening in this thread!

It almost certainly didn't come from inorganic material. But there was all kinds of organic material available on the early earth. The atmosphere was loaded with methane and carbon dioxide to start with.

You keep referring to Pasteur's experiment. This one is much more relevant.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

 

[G.T.]

How has spontaneous generation been debunked?

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.

Pasteur invented the swan-necked flask to create an environment known not to grow microorganisms. After sterilizing a nutrient broth in these flasks, he removed the swan necks of the controls. Microorganisms grew only in the controls, refuting spontaneous generation.[1]

And I have responded to you on this before. Pasteur's experiment in no way proves life could not have formed spontaneously here on earth four billion years ago. Pasteur's experiment took place in a controlled environment with a pre-made broth and took place over several weeks. The formation of life here on earth had an unlimited variety of possible places, from hot thermal vents to tide pools, and took place over 100 million years. Are you bright enough to understand the difference?

Yeah, spontaneous generation requires time, and the environment is indeterminable so....you cant really "refute" it...

Its not been proven yet, either...but disproving it is an impossibility.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

How has spontaneous generation been debunked?

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.

Pasteur invented the swan-necked flask to create an environment known not to grow microorganisms. After sterilizing a nutrient broth in these flasks, he removed the swan necks of the controls. Microorganisms grew only in the controls, refuting spontaneous generation.[1]

And I have responded to you on this before. Pasteur's experiment in no way proves life could not have formed spontaneously here on earth four billion years ago. Pasteur's experiment took place in a controlled environment with a pre-made broth and took place over several weeks. The formation of life here on earth had an unlimited variety of possible places, from hot thermal vents to tide pools, and took place over 100 million years. Are you bright enough to understand the difference?

Yeah, spontaneous generation requires time, and the environment is indeterminable so....you cant really "refute" it...

Its not been proven yet, either...but disproving it is an impossibility.

But life is here. And proving it got started by divine intervention isn't going to happen either.

 

[Penelope]

Again, what is "life" to you? If Is it a self-replicating molecule, or something more supernatural?

Life is living organisms. Life doesn't come from inorganic material. Pasteur proved this.

I am absolutely floored at the level of science illiteracy happening in this thread!

It almost certainly didn't come from inorganic material. But there was all kinds of organic material available on the early earth. The atmosphere was loaded with methane and carbon dioxide to start with.

You keep referring to Pasteur's experiment. This one is much more relevant.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

Where did the organic material come from?

 

[G.T.]

How has spontaneous generation been debunked?

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.

Pasteur invented the swan-necked flask to create an environment known not to grow microorganisms. After sterilizing a nutrient broth in these flasks, he removed the swan necks of the controls. Microorganisms grew only in the controls, refuting spontaneous generation.[1]

And I have responded to you on this before. Pasteur's experiment in no way proves life could not have formed spontaneously here on earth four billion years ago. Pasteur's experiment took place in a controlled environment with a pre-made broth and took place over several weeks. The formation of life here on earth had an unlimited variety of possible places, from hot thermal vents to tide pools, and took place over 100 million years. Are you bright enough to understand the difference?

Yeah, spontaneous generation requires time, and the environment is indeterminable so....you cant really "refute" it...

Its not been proven yet, either...but disproving it is an impossibility.

But life is here. And proving it got started by divine intervention isn't going to happen either.

I agree.

 

[Boss]

How has spontaneous generation been debunked?

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.

Pasteur invented the swan-necked flask to create an environment known not to grow microorganisms. After sterilizing a nutrient broth in these flasks, he removed the swan necks of the controls. Microorganisms grew only in the controls, refuting spontaneous generation.[1]

And I have responded to you on this before. Pasteur's experiment in no way proves life could not have formed spontaneously here on earth four billion years ago. Pasteur's experiment took place in a controlled environment with a pre-made broth and took place over several weeks. The formation of life here on earth had an unlimited variety of possible places, from hot thermal vents to tide pools, and took place over 100 million years. Are you bright enough to understand the difference?

Pasteur's experiment proves that life cannot emerge in a sterile environment. Biogenesis means life comes from life. I'm bright enough to understand you have NOT explained how life originated from inorganic material. Time does not change physics and principles of science. If life cannot emerge from inorganic material, millions of years don't matter.

This is a fallback position because you can't prove your theory. So you appeal to the non-scientific rationalization that, given enough time, things that aren't scientifically possible could've happened. This is called a "faith based belief" in case you wondered.

 

[edthecynic]

Again, what is "life" to you? If Is it a self-replicating molecule, or something more supernatural?

Life is living organisms. Life doesn't come from inorganic material. Pasteur proved this.

I am absolutely floored at the level of science illiteracy happening in this thread!

It almost certainly didn't come from inorganic material. But there was all kinds of organic material available on the early earth. The atmosphere was loaded with methane and carbon dioxide to start with.

You keep referring to Pasteur's experiment. This one is much more relevant.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

Where did the organic material come from?

The main difference between organic and inorganic compounds is in the presence of a carbon atom; organic compounds will contain a carbon atom (and often a hydrogen atom, to form hydrocarbons), while almost all inorganic compounds do not contain either of those two atoms.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Again, what is "life" to you? If Is it a self-replicating molecule, or something more supernatural?

Life is living organisms. Life doesn't come from inorganic material. Pasteur proved this.

I am absolutely floored at the level of science illiteracy happening in this thread!

It almost certainly didn't come from inorganic material. But there was all kinds of organic material available on the early earth. The atmosphere was loaded with methane and carbon dioxide to start with.

You keep referring to Pasteur's experiment. This one is much more relevant.

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

Where did the organic material come from?

Just a guess. Chemical reactions of naturally occurring carbon with other elements like hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.