Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins)
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index


Claim CF001.1:

Systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder.

Source:

Wallace, Timothy, 2002. Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution. - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -


CreationWiki response:

Here again is a scientific concept, worded for non scientists. Unfortunately it is poorly worded. A better wording would be:

In the absence of an organizing force, systems or processes invariably tend to go from order to disorder.


(Talk Origins quotes in blue)

1. This is an attempt to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies an inevitable increase in entropy even in open systems by quibbling with the verbiage "left to themselves." The simple fact is that, unless "left to themselves" means "not acted upon by any outside influence," disorder of systems can decrease. And since outside influence is more often the rule in biological systems, order can and does increase in them.

This is a a straw man fallacy. It assumes the most restrictive possible meaning of "left to themselves." It also assumes that the claim forbids decreases in entropy. Neither of which is the case, it only speaks of the most natural trend. Finally, my proposed rewording eliminates this argument.


2. That the claim is false is not theory. Exceptions happens all the time. For example, plants around my house are left to themselves every spring, and every spring they produce order locally by turning carbon from the air into plant tissue. Drying mud, left to itself, produces orderly cracks. Ice crystals, left to themselves, produce arrangements far more orderly than they would if I interfered. How can a trend to disorder be invariable when exceptions are ubiquitous? And why do creationists argue at such length for claims which they themselves can plainly see are false?

This response is only legitimate with the original wording. With my suggested rewording all three fail to meet the qualification of being "In the absence of an organizing force."

Trees and all living things have an organizing force, i.e. cell functions and cell division, as controlled by DNA.

Drying mud has an organizing force in the form of a combination of the contraction of the drying mud and its adherence to the underlining material.

Ice crystals have an organizing force resulting from the electrical imbalance in water molecules.

water molecule

So all three examples have an organizing force.

3. Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, not disorder

This is the lynch pin of the Talk Origins argument. However when entropy is examined statistically it can be considered a measure of randomness. Now the more random a system is the more disordered it is. The formula for statistical entropy is:

S = k ln w

S is entropy.

k is the Boltzmann Constant = 1.380 6504(24) X 10-23 J K-1

w is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations. This is a direct measurement of disorder.

Random or disordered systems have such a significantly higher number of equivalent equally probable configurations, that they can basically be considered inevitable. Now it is true that entropy is not equivalent to disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The result is that it is accurate to call entropy a measure of disorder.

Reference 1: [ J Philip Bromberg, Physical Chemistry, 1984, pg. 690]

Note: This is a standard college text book, to the best of my knowledge the author is not a creationist.

Reference 2: wikipedia


(although disorder defined to apply to microscopic states can be relevant to thermodynamics).

True, but it can be shown that disorder as applied to any set of statistical states can also be relevant to thermodynamics; both microscopic and macroscopic. It also needs to be noted that increased disorder on the molecular level causes an increase in disorder at the macroscopic level.

There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word.

This is totally false! The above referred-to text book [Bromberg] uses analysis of the entropy of an unshuffled and shuffled deck of cards as an example of the statistical analysis of entropy. This works on organisms, cars, and buildings, as well as a deck of cards.

Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[daws101]

Yes they have. They have been going on the presupposition that there is no designer.

Until you can prove that there is, they will go on doing so. The ball is in YOUR court. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that simple concept?

There is evidence of purposeful design and that gets ignored. This to is a simple concept.

Science should have no bias but what do we see, a rejection of evidence over presuppositions.

 

[daws101]

Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins)
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index


Claim CF001.1:

Systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder.

Source:

Wallace, Timothy, 2002. Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution. - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -


CreationWiki response:

Here again is a scientific concept, worded for non scientists. Unfortunately it is poorly worded. A better wording would be:

In the absence of an organizing force, systems or processes invariably tend to go from order to disorder.


(Talk Origins quotes in blue)

1. This is an attempt to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies an inevitable increase in entropy even in open systems by quibbling with the verbiage "left to themselves." The simple fact is that, unless "left to themselves" means "not acted upon by any outside influence," disorder of systems can decrease. And since outside influence is more often the rule in biological systems, order can and does increase in them.

This is a a straw man fallacy. It assumes the most restrictive possible meaning of "left to themselves." It also assumes that the claim forbids decreases in entropy. Neither of which is the case, it only speaks of the most natural trend. Finally, my proposed rewording eliminates this argument.


2. That the claim is false is not theory. Exceptions happens all the time. For example, plants around my house are left to themselves every spring, and every spring they produce order locally by turning carbon from the air into plant tissue. Drying mud, left to itself, produces orderly cracks. Ice crystals, left to themselves, produce arrangements far more orderly than they would if I interfered. How can a trend to disorder be invariable when exceptions are ubiquitous? And why do creationists argue at such length for claims which they themselves can plainly see are false?

This response is only legitimate with the original wording. With my suggested rewording all three fail to meet the qualification of being "In the absence of an organizing force."

Trees and all living things have an organizing force, i.e. cell functions and cell division, as controlled by DNA.

Drying mud has an organizing force in the form of a combination of the contraction of the drying mud and its adherence to the underlining material.

Ice crystals have an organizing force resulting from the electrical imbalance in water molecules.

water molecule

So all three examples have an organizing force.

3. Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, not disorder

This is the lynch pin of the Talk Origins argument. However when entropy is examined statistically it can be considered a measure of randomness. Now the more random a system is the more disordered it is. The formula for statistical entropy is:

S = k ln w

S is entropy.

k is the Boltzmann Constant = 1.380 6504(24) X 10-23 J K-1

w is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations. This is a direct measurement of disorder.

Random or disordered systems have such a significantly higher number of equivalent equally probable configurations, that they can basically be considered inevitable. Now it is true that entropy is not equivalent to disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The result is that it is accurate to call entropy a measure of disorder.

Reference 1: [ J Philip Bromberg, Physical Chemistry, 1984, pg. 690]

Note: This is a standard college text book, to the best of my knowledge the author is not a creationist.

Reference 2: wikipedia


(although disorder defined to apply to microscopic states can be relevant to thermodynamics).

True, but it can be shown that disorder as applied to any set of statistical states can also be relevant to thermodynamics; both microscopic and macroscopic. It also needs to be noted that increased disorder on the molecular level causes an increase in disorder at the macroscopic level.

There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word.

This is totally false! The above referred-to text book [Bromberg] uses analysis of the entropy of an unshuffled and shuffled deck of cards as an example of the statistical analysis of entropy. This works on organisms, cars, and buildings, as well as a deck of cards.

Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

creationism is not science making this site Scientifically invalid...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to&#8221 the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -

 

[daws101]

What do you to go by to determine that the origins of life was a product of chaos converted to order ? Or that the origins of natural processes were produced by unguided naturalism?

I think it is obvious why you're dodging your obligation to prove your assertions.

I have never believed order can come from chaotic systems.

as always your belief is not relevant....

 

[daws101]

Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to”) the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -

another pseudo scientific creationist site.

 

[itfitzme]

Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.

They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God. They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky. They believe that makes them appear intelligent.

Ignore them.

It isn't possible to create a "strawman" for something that doesn't exist. By definition, the entire concept of god as an object is a strawman from the outset. "Strawman" requires that there be something real to begin with.

And your failure to present an argument, in the first place, isn't the fault of others. Not presenting an argument leaves no option but to fill in the gaping hole that you refuse to address.

Case in point, this post where you claim that athiests create a strawman "telling people there's no guy in the sky", yet present no evidence of what you think proof or object is.

So, yeah, there is no guy in the sky. And yeah, whatever you unstated "objective" argumemt is, it is wrong. It is wrong because you have none. I know you have none because you state none. It is entirely reasonable to say you have none, based on the evidence that you present none, because that is all naturalism and science have to go on, the real evidence.

Clearly you feel that you are right. And I can say that with equal certainty.

But, you don't get to present nothing, make no definitive statement, and then whine about strawman arguments.

But we can turn the tables on this comment and say the very same thing for the origins of life.

It is a strawman argument to suggest evolution and natural processes brought life to where it is now.

It is strawman argument to suggest life on other planets exist. So science now uses strawman arguments for their theories ?

Except science makes none of the argumemts, presents none of the theories, that you seem to continue to ascribe to it. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the body of science, some individual scientists hypothesis, theories and laws of science, working hypothesis, unworkable hypothesis, deductions that follow first principles, blog statements by individuals that have no concept of science, and your own personal misunderstandings.

There is no scientific proof that life does or does not exist on other planets. There is no scientific proof of how life first began. There is no scientific proof of God the creator, Intelligent Design, or Creationism.

The current probability of life existing on any given planet in the universe is now one in 786 (or whatever that number is) because we have evidence of 786 (or whatever that number is) planets and demonstrated proof of life on one. There is some hupothesis of the probability of life on other planets, devised by some sciency dude. It is a formula based on a number of unknown values, a model. Further, we have some reasonable deduction of what is called "the Goldilocks zone", that narrows down the habitable planets to nine. That gives us a probability of 1/9 which is a sample size that is statistically insignificant.

If you ask me, I believe that there is no life beyond Earth. My belief is that the circumstance necessary for life to develop is so unbelievably improbable that out of all the planets, around all the stars, in all the galaxies in the universe, it happened only once. I believe that we are the only creatures to ever have looked out into the sky and asked the question, "Are we alone?"

There is overwhelming scientific proof of evolution.

The hypotheais, the undeniable working hypothesis, based on all proven, demonstratable, empirical, sciemtific evidence is that life began due to an initial condition in which otherwise inanimate chemical compounds first developed into a self replicating structure.

The useless hypothesis is that some mythical intelligent independent force or being initiated those conditions.

Science does not fill in the "I ain't got a clue" with a completely unsupported supposition for which there is no physical and natural basis upon which to support it. You are welcome to believe it, if that's what makes you feel better.

But, fundamentally, every living creature is comprised of inanimate material. The only thing that distinguishes living cells from non-living structures is that living structures are a more complex structure of otherwise inanimate materials that are self sustaining and self replicating until something interupts that process.

And the absolute wonder of science and medicine, which continues to push back the line of the unknown, is that a surgeon can now put a patient on the operating room table, stop the heart from beating, literally stop a human life as we typically know it, and replace a number of organs, including installing an artificial heart.

Regularly, surgeons stop a heart, literally killing the person, and then start life right back up again. And they do this without intervention of some external intelligent force.

 

[daws101]

There is evidence of purposeful design and that gets ignored. This to is a simple concept.

Science should have no bias but what do we see, a rejection of evidence over presuppositions.

What evidence is there for "purposeful design"?

You would first need to present evidence of designer gawds and then present evidence that the designer gawds intended their designs to function as "designed".

Maybe you're hearing voices from the gods?

Show your evidence.

How bout a sun,moon,atmosphere,oxygen,organs,blood,veins,skeletal structures,food,water. Can you imagine life without any of the above ?

those are not evidence of design or a designer...

 

[Hollie]

But we can turn the tables on this comment and say the very same thing for the origins of life.

It is a strawman argument to suggest evolution and natural processes brought life to where it is now.

It seems that whenever you try to turn the tables, you bump your head in the process.

You’re not defining a strawman argument.
Evolution and natural processes provides the best explanation of how life appears on the planet. You deny that obvious fact because evolution and natural processes conflict with accounts in the various bibles.
You don’t understand evolution at all, do you? Here is a short primer:

1. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.

2. Populations have a huge amount of genetic variation for every physical trait they possess.

3. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.

4. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness.

5. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable.

6. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever.

7. As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes.

8. Physical traits therefore have no theoretical limit to the direction or extent of evolution they can experience.

Now, think about that for a while before you come back and ask another question.

In the meantime, define for us how it is that magical gawds via unnatural processes explains anything?

It is strawman argument to suggest life on other planets exist. So science now uses strawman arguments for their theories ?

Life on other planets beyond our solar system is a hypothesis. It is through a hypothesis that the discipline of the scientific method can be used to gather data and reach conclusions. But your position seems unable to account for all the mysteries that are no longer mysterious, or all the paradoxes that have been resolved. We actually know vast amounts about the universe that we didn’t know just a few years ago. So you are little more than a dogmatic religious extremist if you believe that a mystery will always remain a mystery and thus choose to fall back into “the gods did it” security blanket where your fears, ignorance and superstitions are coddled.

 

[daws101]

It was also easily demonstrated in the Kitzmiller trial that ID is just creationism in a fancy dress.

Only because the intelligent agent has not shown up in court yet

I keep asking myself why I am trying to reason with someone like you who doesn't have the capacity to reason. I have this small glimmer of hope that maybe you'll smarten up and get some integrity but it appears that you have a death grip on your cult of ignorance, so I am not going to waste any more time. You are choosing to remain stupid.

bump

 

[daws101]

Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.

They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God. They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky. They believe that makes them appear intelligent.

Ignore them.

Robert A. Heinlein

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long]


History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long]


Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing - with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long]


Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful--just stupid.) [Robert Heinlein]


One man's religion is another man's belly laugh. [Robert Heinlein]


The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history. [Robert Heinlein]


If you pray hard enough, you can make water run uphill. How hard? Why, hard enough to make water run uphill, of course! [Robert A. Heinlein, Expanded Universe]


The hell I won't talk that way! Peter, an eternity here without her is not an eternity of bliss; it is an eternity of boredom and loneliness and grief. You think this damned gaudy halo means anything to me when I know--yes, you've convinced me!--that my beloved is burning in the Pit? I didn't ask much. Just to be allowed to live with her. I was willing to wash dishes forever if only I could see her smile, hear her voice, touch her hand! She's been shipped on a technicality and you know it! Snobbish, bad-tempered angels get to live here without ever doing one lick to deserve it. But my Marga, who is a real angel if one ever lived, gets turned down and sent to Hell to everlasting torture on a childish twist in the rules. You can tell the Father and His sweet-talking Son and that sneaky Ghost that they can take their gaudy Holy City and shove it! If Margrethe has to be in Hell, that's where I want to be! [Robert Heinlein, Alexander Hergensheimer in Job: A Comedy of Justice]


Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. [Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice]


Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything... just give him time to rationalize it. [Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice]


There is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the Doctrine of Divine Mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. 'The Almighty,' he explained, 'finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores. [Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988) Methuselah's Children]


God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good, and is no sillier than any other theology. [Lazarus Long, _Time Enough for Love_ by Robert Heinlein]

 

[daws101]

Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not. But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy. (as you so state)

But let that not trouble the text book writers.

Anyway, they can do as they please. I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!" And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons. (easy to google) Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be). Jesus has given us signs enough.

Shroud of Turin Not Jesus', Tomb Discovery Suggests

The Shroud of Turin - McCrone Research Institute (McRI) - Chicago, IL

The Fraud of Turin | Center for Inquiry

ShadowShroud

thanks for posting credible refutation of that myth...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, because I am past my prime and everything is beginning to break down due to disorder. What is the cause of things breaking down ?

You're less ordered than an egg. Thanks for admitting the obvious.
That explains your ignorance.
Thanks, just wanted to point that out.

I feel like I am but thanks for avoiding the obvious answer that supports what I have been saying.

You defeated your own point by trying to show what is contained in our genes is evolution. What it really was, is the instructions of what you will be, and when your body will break down, while you were just an egg.

I'm glad to point out that living things can get more complex by taking in energy.

Glad to point out the ignorance of your 2nd Law idiocy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to this planet ? We know of other impacts how is this interacting with other systems ?

The 2nd law applies to closed systems.

Living organisms aren't closed systems. Durr.

Whoa but the system we live in is a closed system. Why does everything decay with age ? if this system has an effect on homes,cars,ect surely it has an effect on living organisms correct ? that is only obvious by observation. Durr.

No, we are not living in a closed system. The only thing closed here is your mind.

It's for the best, it's too small to contain very much. New info might kill you.

 

[Hollie]

Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to&#8221 the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -

another pseudo scientific creationist site.

And pseudo scientific creationist sites are a staple for the boy.

The TrueOrigin FAQ

We ARE trying to do exactly what is stated at the outset on this site’s “home” page — which is to demonstrate that the NeoDarwinian Macroevolution belief system does not find “overwhelming” unequivocal support in the data of empirical science, and that the biblical creation model in fact finds compelling, corroborative support in the same data available to and used by evolutionists.

The same data available to and used by evolutionists?

That's odd, I wasn't aware that "evilutionists" used spontaneously combusting shrubs, Arks, 600 year old men, men rising from the dead, parting seas, magic tablets, fat naked babies playing harps, winged horses, etc., as support for science and evolution.

Why is it that these religious extremists never actually present the data supporting magic and supernaturalism that "supports", how shall we say... magic and supernaturalism

 

[Steven_R]

What evidence is there for "purposeful design"?

You would first need to present evidence of designer gawds and then present evidence that the designer gawds intended their designs to function as "designed".

Maybe you're hearing voices from the gods?

Show your evidence.

How bout a sun,moon,atmosphere,oxygen,organs,blood,veins,skeletal structures,food,water. Can you imagine life without any of the above ?

those are not evidence of design or a designer...

Considering the existence of extremophiles living near hot smoker vents on the ocean floors that have no connection to the Sun based food chain, yeah I can see life without the Sun.

The moon is nice, but life can do just fine without it.

Atmosphere might be a little harder to get around, but Europa effectively has no atmosphere and life may be abundant beneath the ice.

Oxygen is the only one of those things that life as we know it has to have, but then again life arose on a primordial Earth that had an oxygen poor atmosphere.

Blood, bones, organs are all absent in single celled organisms and they do just fine without them.

Food. Define food. Plants use sunlight as food.

Water. Life as we know it needs water (although viruses don't but the jury is still out on whether or not a virus is technically a lifeform). But why wouldn't there be any water? Other than H2 and O2, H2O is the most abundant compound in the universe, largely because of the molecular physics involved. The only way to not have water is to change the laws of physics and at that point this whole exercise is nothing more than mental masturbation.

 

[daws101]

How bout a sun,moon,atmosphere,oxygen,organs,blood,veins,skeletal structures,food,water. Can you imagine life without any of the above ?

those are not evidence of design or a designer...

Considering the existence of extremophiles living near hot smoker vents on the ocean floors that have no connection to the Sun based food chain, yeah I can see life without the Sun.

The moon is nice, but life can do just fine without it.

Atmosphere might be a little harder to get around, but Europa effectively has no atmosphere and life may be abundant beneath the ice.

Oxygen is the only one of those things that life as we know it has to have, but then again life arose on a primordial Earth that had an oxygen poor atmosphere.

Blood, bones, organs are all absent in single celled organisms and they do just fine without them.

Food. Define food. Plants use sunlight as food.

Water. Life as we know it needs water (although viruses don't but the jury is still out on whether or not a virus is technically a lifeform). But why wouldn't there be any water? Other than H2 and O2, H2O is the most abundant compound in the universe, largely because of the molecular physics involved. The only way to not have water is to change the laws of physics and at that point this whole exercise is nothing more than mental masturbation.

 

[Hollie]

How bout a sun,moon,atmosphere,oxygen,organs,blood,veins,skeletal structures,food,water. Can you imagine life without any of the above ?

those are not evidence of design or a designer...

Considering the existence of extremophiles living near hot smoker vents on the ocean floors that have no connection to the Sun based food chain, yeah I can see life without the Sun.

Uh oh. Now you did it. Ywc will soon drench the thread with biblical tales of "fountains of the deep", thus "proving" that, well, your schooling was a waste of time. You could have read the bibles for all your science and saved a bundle on student loan payments.

 

[Steven_R]

That's odd, I wasn't aware that "evilutionists" used spontaneously combusting shrubs, Arks, 600 year old men, men rising from the dead, parting seas, magic tablets, fat naked babies playing harps, winged horses, etc., as support for science and evolution.

My understanding is that those things are issued when tenure is granted. Postdocs just get a halo and an answer to the question of just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Grad students are lucky if they can find a free meal to scrounge.

 

[Steven_R]

And the voice of the PI did spake, "yea, there is an abundance of donuts in the conference room." And there were. And the PI spake again, "I give you, my graduate students who have suffered and toiled under my hand these donuts this very day." And so the PI did. The donuts were of many varied kinds with crullers and jellies and chocolate and glazed kinds among them. The donuts were from the land of Krispy Kreme. Verily did the graduate students, hungry and famished and underpaid, pounce upon the donuts. And the PI saw that it was good and the graduate students did rejoice.

From the Book of Tenure 3:24-27