LordReed:


Nope, endothermic reactions need the energy to effect the reaction, no energy no reaction. Ice block melting is not a chemical reaction.

Agreed!

But endothermic reactions increases the entropy of the reactants. And if entropy has increased, then energy coupling system is useless

LordReed:


Because death is not a reversible process (At least not yet) and you can practically halt decay by lowering the entropy.

If death is not a reversible process as you just said, then non living materials (which are no way different from dead cells) can never become living by natural process.

Practically stopping the decaying process by lowering the entropy involves the act of conscious and intelligent agents like human being. This is called embalmment.
But according to your own world view, such conscious and intelligent agent that can miraculously lower the entropy of non living materials for a living cell to emerge did not exist at the beginning of life.

Abdulgaffar22:
Honestly, I didn't get your question. Pls reframe it

Recall, why God, why not gods?
You said: if there are Gods, there will be CONFLICT OF WILLS
My question: How do you prove that "There are no conflict of wills?".

Blabbermouth:

Recall, why God, why not gods?
You said: if there are Gods, there will be CONFLICT OF WILLS
My question: How do you prove that "There are no conflict of wills?".

1. If there are conflict of wills, the universe would have been in a state of chaos.

2. If there are conflict of wills, there would be no evidence of common design (existence of DNA code) from the simplest life form to the most complex life form (human being)

Abdulgaffar22:


Agreed!

But endothermic reactions increases the entropy of the reactants. And if entropy has increased, then energy coupling system is useless

Nope, reactions favour increased entropy.

If death is not a reversible process as you just said, then non living materials (which are no way different from dead cells) can never become living by natural process.

Practically stopping the decaying process by lowering the entropy involves the act of conscious and intelligent agents like human being. This is called embalmment.
But according to your own world view, such conscious and intelligent agent that can miraculously lower the entropy of non living materials for a living cell to emerge did not exist at the beginning of life.

Death and life are 2 different things that much is evident.

No, because lowering entropy can happen naturally. Freezing weather occurs naturally does it not?

love how the op just sticks to facts devoid of religious sentiments. but op, while u've tried to provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural being responsible for the creation of the universe, hope u know no one has found out who this creator is?

LordReed:



Death and life are 2 different things that much is evidence


No, because lowering entropy can happen naturally. Freezing weather occurs naturally does it not?

Are you saying saying non living materials have a greater tendency in becoming a living cell more than the dead cell ?

Are you saying non living materials would suddenly jump to become a living cell without gradually passing through the stages that decaying dead cell have once been before ?

If a dead cell is decaying continuously until it reaches the level of non living materials, then is it possible for the same non living materials to reverse back and come back to life without any intervention ? Have you not agreed before that death is an irreversible process ?

Edybleketara:
love how the op just sticks to facts devoid of religious sentiments. but op, while u've tried to provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural being responsible for the creation of the universe, hope u know no one has found out who this creator is?

Knowing who is the Creator is another topic on its own; it is different from what we are treating here

Abdulgaffar22:


Are you saying saying non living materials have a greater tendency in becoming a living cell more than the dead cell ?

Are you saying non living materials would suddenly jump to become a living cell without gradually passing through the stages that decaying dead cell have once been before ?

If a dead cell is decaying continuously until it reaches the level of non living materials, then is it possible for the same non living materials to reverse back and come back to life ? Have you not agreed before that death is an irreversible process ?

That there are reversible reactions doesn't mean that all reactions must be reversible. Also, the conversion from non-living material to living was a long drawn out process that possibly took billions of years so you cannot compare it to a much more instantaneous process like death

LordReed:


That there are reversible reactions doesn't mean that all reactions must be reversible. Also, the conversion from non-living material to living was a long drawn out process that possibly took billions of years so you cannot compare it to a much more instantaneous process like death

Pls let me rephrase the third question and I want you to answer it by saying yes or no ;

If a dead cell is decaying continuously until it COMES DOWN to the level of non living materials, then is it possible for the SAME non living materials (produced by that deadcell )to REVERSE back and come back to life without any intervention ?

Abdulgaffar22:


Pls let me rephrase the third question and I want you to answer it by saying yes or no ;

If a dead cell is decaying continuously until it COMES DOWN to the level of non living materials, then is it possible for the SAME non living materials (produced by that deadcell )to REVERSE back and come back to life without any intervention ?

No. The process that made non-living material give rise to living material is not a reversal of death.

Abdulgaffar22:
Whenever there is need for the production of a particular protein inside the cell, the following summarized events take place;

1. The enzyme known as RNA polymerase make a "copy" of little relevant information from the DNA located inside the nucleus of a cell. This little transcribed copy of DNA is called the messenger RNA.

2. The messenger RNA now "travel" out of the nucleus and head toward the cytoplasm to find the ribosomes.

3. The ribosomes then "read" and "translate" the information carried by the messenger RNA.

4. The transfer RNA "transport" the necessary raw materials (different amino acids) from the cytoplasm to the factory (i:e the ribosomes) where they would be assembled and processed into a functional protein base on the translation process done by the ribosomes on the information carried by the messenger RNA.

5. The functional protein would now be "transfer" to the exact place where it is needed, either inside the cell or outside the cell.

Based on the events of protein synthesis explained above, let us ask some reasonable questions;

How did RNA polymerase manage to RECOGNIZE and COPY the required little information out of the bank of information contained inside the DNA ?
It is like you are being asked to go and copy a little information written on a particular page of a voluminous encyclopedia. See how difficult the task would be for you to do despite your intelligence and consciousness.
But now consider an ordinary enzyme like RNA polymerase that lack such intelligence and consciousness. How did it manage to carry out this difficult task ?
How did the enzyme "know" where to start copying the information and where to stop ?
Can this biological information itself (i:e DNA) and this enzyme (meant to recognize and copy different portions of it ) evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design?

Again, how did messenger RNA manage to travel out of the nucleus and head toward the ribosomes ?
Out of all the organelles (like mitochondria, golgi apparatus, lysosomes, smooth endoplasmic reticulum, secretory vesicles, centrosomes etc) present inside the cytoplasm, why did messenger RNA decide to "choose" ribosomes and move toward it ?
Can this wise choice evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ?

Furthermore, how did ribosomes manage to "read" and "translate" this biological information ? Was this process of reading and translating evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ?

Moreover , look at the transfer RNAs that transport the raw materials (different amino acids) to the factory (ribosomes) where they are assembled and processed to become a functional protein. Again, why did transfer RNA also manage to deposit those raw materials inside the ribosomes out of many other organelles present inside the cytoplasm ?
Was this also evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ?

Finally, after the production of the required protein, how did protein manage to be transported to the site where they are exactly needed ? Was this process of transportation to the targeted site also evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ? Does chance has any "will or power" to choose what the cell require ?

If all these events are too complex, specific, directional and purposeful to be evolved by CHANCE, then is it not "INTELLIGENCE" that is orchestrating all these events ? Is there any third option ?

But if this "intelligence" cannot be attributed to unintelligent and unconscious atoms or entities that make up the cell organelles or the physical universe, then who is the owner of this very intelligence other than the Creator of all living things ? It is this very intelligent Creator we describe as God

.




God will soon solve the problems of Nigeria and thereafter deal with Atheists.

MJBOLT:

another incoherent trash

.




Good.

LordReed:


No. The process that made non-living material give rise to living material is not a reversal of death.

As you agreed, if it is impossible for the non living materials produced by the dead cell to become a living cell irrespective of the time it would take, then are you saying these very non living materials (produced by the dead cell) are totally different from the non living materials that gave rise to the first living cell 3.8 billions years ago ?

Abdulgaffar22:


Knowing who is the Creator is another topic on its own; it is different from what we are treating here

Then there is no reason for atheists to change their minds after reading ur post since atheism is simply a lack of believe in a particular God.

Edybleketara:
Then there is no reason for atheists to change their minds after reading ur post since atheism is simply a lack of believe in a particular God.

Give us the Oxford dictionary meaning of atheism

Vrengkat:
Hold on to your archaic dogmatic trash... Don't bring atheist into this... I'm sure you are second guessing every shit in ur holy pamphlet to

.



He doesn't know that you are Pope Francis' Consultant. We shall soon impeach you and The Pope.

Abdulgaffar22:


As you agreed, if it is impossible for the non living materials produced by the dead cell to become a living cell irrespective of the time it would take, then are you saying these very non living materials (produced by the dead cell) are totally different from the non living materials that gave rise to the first living cell 3.8 billions years ago ?

Because the process will not be the same.

LordReed:


Because the process will not be the same.

So there was a particular natural process that existed before and does not exist now ?

Abdulgaffar22:


So there was a particular natural process that existed before and does not exist now ?

Yes. The conditions on earth at the time this was happening is very different from what they are now. They have tried to replicate such conditions in a lab setting and the results suggest that abiogenesis is possible. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

LordReed:


Yes. The conditions on earth at the time this was happening is very different from what they are now. They have tried to replicate such conditions in a lab setting and the results suggest that abiogenesis is possible. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

# Shortly before their decay, a dead cell is made up of organelles like nucleus, ribosomes, mitochondria, golgi apparatus, lysosomes, smooth endoplasmic reticulum, secretory vesicles, centrosomes cytoplasm etc

# These organelles are made up proteins, fats, nucleotides and other macromolecules.

# The proteins are made up of chains of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence.

Yet the final product of Miller - Urey exeperiment are nothing but amino acids and few organic molecules.

See the "gap" between a dead cell and what the scientists were able to produce in their well equipped laboratory

What a dead cell contains is far far greater, yet DECAYING process causes the dead cell to decompose. Would such decaying process allow such amino acids and other macromolecules to build up gradually until they reach the level of a living cell ?

Abdulgaffar22:


# Shortly before their decay, a dead cell is made up of organelles like nucleus, ribosomes, mitochondria, golgi apparatus, lysosomes, smooth endoplasmic reticulum, secretory vesicles, centrosomes cytoplasm etc

# These organelles are made up proteins, fats, nucleotides and other macromolecules.

# The proteins are made up of chains of amino acids arranged in a particular sequence.

Yet the final product of Miller - Urey exeperiment are nothing but amino acids and few organic molecules.

See the "gap" between a dead cell and what the scientists were able to produce in their well equipped laboratory

What a dead cell contains is far far greater, yet DECAYING process causes the dead cell to decompose. Would such decaying process allow such amino acids and other macromolecules to build up gradually until they reach the level of a living cell ?

Did I say it was a decaying process? Did I not repeatedly stress that the process and conditions for the process are different?

Abdulgaffar22:

Give us the Oxford dictionary meaning of atheism

google is ur friend bro

Edybleketara:
google is ur friend bro

Definition of atheism

(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes, excluding other religious beliefs).

(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist)

(very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).

(loosely) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).

As you have seen, you gave a loosely definition

LordReed:


Did I say it was a decaying process? Did I not repeatedly stress that the process and conditions for the process are different?

Did I quote you saying decaying process brought the first living cell into existence ?

My point is this; decaying process would never give room for any of the natural process that would give rise to the first living cell irrespective of any condition. Even the amino acids and few organic molecules produced in Miller-urey experiment required the assistance of an intelligent and conscious agents

The early earth conditions can only give room for the creation of the building blocks ( like amino acids and few organic molecules). The condition can never ASSEMBLE those building blocks into organelles talk less of PUTTING those organelles in their respective location.

Abdulgaffar22:


Definition of atheism

(narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes, excluding other religious beliefs).

(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist)

(very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).

(loosely) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).

As you have seen, you gave a loosely definition

title of ur thread says atheists should change their minds b4 it's too late, like u've discovered this creator and u know exactly what he wants.

Abdulgaffar22:


Did I quote you saying decaying process brought the first living cell into existence ?

My point is this; decaying process would never give room for any of the natural process that would give rise to the first living cell irrespective of any condition. Even the amino acids and few organic molecules produced in Miller-urey experiment required the assistance of an intelligent and conscious agents

The early earth conditions can only give room for the creation of the building blocks ( like amino acids and few organic molecules). The condition can never ASSEMBLE those building blocks into organelles talk less of PUTTING those organelles in their respective location.

Then why are you mentioning decaying process as if I said it was the mechanism? Decaying process cannot because that was not the process.

The building blocks were assembled in more complex structures as time went on. Having proved that the building blocks can arise from non-living material, I am more inclined towards that projection than towards your assertion that it cannot be done.

Abdulgaffar22:

. Even the amino acids and few organic molecules produced in Miller-urey experiment required the assistance of an intelligent and conscious agents

Oh, I see it now. Even if they were able to exactly replicate the move from mere prebiotic molecules to biotic, you'll claim it required an intelligent agent. SMH. I think I have been wasting my time discussing with you.

LordReed:


Then why are you mentioning decaying process as if I said it was the mechanism? Decaying process cannot because that was not the process.

The building blocks were assembled in more complex structures as time went on. Having proved that the building blocks can arise from non-living material, I am more inclined towards that projection than towards your assertion that it cannot be done.

Have you forgotten that Miller Urey experiment has already demonstrated that the creation of such building blocks required the assistance of an intelligent and conscious agent ? Did all those complex apparatus in the experiment exist 3.8 billions years ago ?
Again, see the unbridgeable gap between a dead cell and the few organic molecules produced in Miller Urey experiment !

LordReed:


Oh, I see it now. Even if they were able to exactly replicate the move from mere prebiotic molecules to biotic, you'll claim it required an intelligent agent. SMH. I think I have been wasting my time discussing with you.

But what am I trying to prove since all this time? Is it not to prove that an intelligent agent is required for the life to evolve from non living materials ?

Well let me just give you the final evidence for the existence of intelligence guiding the creation of all living things;

Take a look at six classes of animal we are familiar with;
# Invertebrates (like worms, snails and insects)
# Pisces ( like fishes and other marine organisms)
# Amphibians ( like frogs and toads)
# Reptiles (like lizards, snakes, crocodiles and alligators)
# Birds (like eagles, ducks and chickens)
# Mammals ( goats, dogs, elephants, horse and apes)
All these animals have male and female with their reproductive structures which must be anatomically compatible with each other in terms of SIZE and SHAPE
For example, while male ducks have corkscrew-shaped phalluses, female ducks have anti-corkscrew-shaped vaginal tracts.

If there is no any intelligence guiding the creation of different sets of reproductive structures found in all these animals, there is no way for male and female reproductive structures to be compatible with each other in terms of SIZE AND SHAPE

Can process of chance accomplished this difficult task ?

It is left for you to change your mind and believe in God before it is too late for you. I have tried my best.

Abdulgaffar22:


But what am I trying to prove since all this time? Is it not to prove that an intelligent agent is required for the life to evolve from non living materials ?

So then you admit to your dishonesty because this is what you said:

Abdulgaffar22:


If all these events are constrained and brought into existence by physical law of universe, why all these events only seen in biological cells ? In other words, why scientists have not yet been able to create one living proto cell in their well equipped laboratory and witness all these events in this living proto cell ?

Now you turn around to say if it is done in the lab it is proof that intelligence is required, meaning there'd be no way to falsify any god claims. I should have spotted your duplicity from the onset.

Abdulgaffar22:


But what am I trying to prove since all this time? Is it not to prove that an intelligent agent is required for the life to evolve from non living materials ?

Well let me just give you the final evidence for the existence of intelligence guiding the creation of all living things;

Take a look at six classes of animal we are familiar with;
# Invertebrates (like worms, snails and insects)
# Pisces ( like fishes and other marine organisms)
# Amphibians ( like frogs and toads)
# Reptiles (like lizards, snakes, crocodiles and alligators)
# Birds (like eagles, ducks and chickens)
# Mammals ( goats, dogs, elephants, horse and apes)
All these animals have male and female with their reproductive structures which must be anatomically compatible with each other in terms of SIZE and SHAPE
For example, while male ducks have corkscrew-shaped phalluses, female ducks have anti-corkscrew-shaped vaginal tracts.

If there is no any intelligence guiding the creation of different sets of reproductive structures found in all these animals, there is no way for male and female reproductive structures to be compatible with each other in terms of SIZE AND SHAPE

Can process of chance accomplished this difficult task ?

It is left for you to change your mind and believe in God before it is too late for you. I have tried my best.

So if I use a corkscrew drill bit to drill into a wall what shape of hole do you expect it to have, square, circle or corkscrew?

LordReed:


So if I use a corkscrew drill bit to drill into a wall what shape of hole do you expect it to have, square, circle or corkscrew?

Honestly you're an atheist by ignorance. You didn't know anything about genetics. An acquired trait is not hereditary in nature.
If a man get his right arm amputated through an accident, then can his children inherit this amputation ? Certainly not. This is because there is nothing wrong with the DNA that codes for the construction of the two arms during embryonic development.

Similarly, if it was the first male duck' s phallus that caused the first female duck' s vaginal tract to be corkscrew as you think, then there is no way for this trait to be inherited by the subsequent generations of the female duck. Besides, do you think the phallus of the male animals are so strong to make a permanent shape of hole in the body of the female animals ? Was it the shape of human penis that created the shape of the human vagina ?

Sorry ! You get it wrong

The corkscrew shape of the male and female duck' s reproductive structures is already encoded on their DNA just like shape of male human' s penis and shape of female human' s vagina are already encoded on human DNA.

The creation of two complex biological structures ( like male and female duck' s reproductive structures and male and female human' s reproductive structures ) which are COMPLEMENTARY with each other is beyond the work of chance.
It is definitely the work of intelligence to those who have inner eyes to see things