The first Universal Law of the Universe

I am thinking you are both using pre organic to mean pre biologic. Organic chemistry is simply chemistry involving carbon. That as been around since the early stars formed and spat out carbon and other elements.

It is what it is Mike, inorganic chemistry. We deal with facts here, not pseudo-philosophical word play. Yes, that's what I did, I referred to it simply as inorganic chemistry. Progress of sorts I suppose. Well you need to define whatever it is you're asking for otherwise you'll get answers you don't like or understand. As it happens, I think RAZD is using 'entanglement' wrongly in trying to apply it to all things. Quantum entanglement is a specific thing and I can't see why it should apply in the macro world.

Well I am for sure.It turns out that MtW is actually looking for a pre-cell. Pre-biological has no meaning to me as far as chemistry goes - it would just be organic chemistry.

And he succeeded. Right now, in all our chemical knowledge - organic, inorganic, pre-organic, pre-biologic, organometallic - the thing we see is that only life seems chemically capable of spawning and we don’t know why. Life is a most talented chemist. Far better than we, right now.We cannot, right now, put our most wondrous concoctions of chemicals together such that long-chain reactions would sustain themselves indefinably when fed, as evolution demands, the right environment for the right amount of time. We cannot, yet, create life of that definition, as inadequate as it may be.But our chemistry, like all the other sciences, is exceptionally detailed, tested and growing stronger.We’ll get there. And when we do you will need to find some other deep shadow of ignorance in which to hide your god. That sounds rather stupid. RAZD would expect critical feedback not idolization.You guys did that already with that Bible/Quran thing of yours and look where that got you. Nothing but misery and blood ever since.I mean dumb is dumb, Mike, but com’on.I would advise you don’t do that anymore. And yet you accept the precepts of your faith on precisely that basis. Someone wrote it down in the blessed holy Pick-One book of religiosity so, by golly, it’s just gotta be true.(Wait . creationist logic.)So, hey, Mike, can you prove you are not superman’s son? Gotta be hard evidence. Something I can hold. And no missing links.I like playing on your side of the street. Well, technically, he wasn’t all right, but the spirit parts, not all of which I will reject, was quite well done.Doesn’t matter. Poor creationists are going to soon be looking for a new hidey hole to point to saying “he’s in there.”Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Hi Mike Your example, H₂O, is pre-biotic, as a most simplistic example. The more complex examples would be those found in outer space (ie unaffected by life on earth). See

quote:

---

Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)

​

In deeper space we find the signatures of other organics compounds: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) molecules are the most abundant family of molecules in the interstellar medium after molecular hydrogen and carbon monoxide, ...

---

These molecules would likely be formed during nova type events as gases are expelled, expand and cool/condense into entangled molecules that are then be scattered in space. A chemical/molecule that is used to make/build biotic molecules, those necessary for life (amino acids for biotic chemical example).The entanglement of these pre-existing pre-biotic into biotics means mixing in proximity to allow the further entanglements. Natural caldrons of puddles perhaps.Enjoy

Temporary though very long-term decreases in disorder which entropy not just allows but may in fact require in regions of thermodynamic excess. But natural cauldrons of puddles is a much better way to describe it.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The Viet Cong learned a lot from God: throw a grenade in one hole and he scurries along to another hole.

Hi RAZD, thanks for your response I always appreciate your posts being free of the usual rhetorica codswallop many anti-theists litter theirs with. Nice to just discuss it without it turning into a big personal war. That would only create a racemic mixture of amino acids. Proteins are not merely amino acids.Amino acids are used for organic chemistry but there are no examples to match your claim. There are only examples in nature of aminos being formed naturally. There isn't one example beyond perhaps a tetra-peptide, of any polymer coming about from an inorganic "entanglement" scenario, RAZD.From: Origin of life: the polymerization problem - creation.com (I recommend you read that article, you may be surprised by the standard, having only been led to believe creationists are creatards. You seem like a reasonable chap, give it a try my lad.) I believe you're trying to blur the lines here a bit though perhaps not intentionally. The fact is there are no proteins or DNA found in inorganic chemistry and there isn't one example where entanglement of amino acids caused a protein to form. Yes, we have all heard the story of how it happened. "Perhaps" isn't the same as "fact". It is a fact we can get things like aminos and oxygen from entanglement of certain atoms, it is indeed only a, "perhaps", and this is essentially my point, if you read my original response; that there is a difference between some of these posited "entanglements".But "further entanglements" won't produce a level of specified complexity. That is to say if you see the words, "hi" on a rock, it's true we expect a low level of specified complexity to perhaps be created naturally, some natural cause, but if you find, "mike was here" on a rock, ALREADY natural chance has been EXHAUSTED.So then it seems obvious the cause for a polymer with a chain of some 100 homochiral aminos requires teleology.I won't argue it here as such, but what I am saying is that these "entanglements" would be believed by evolutionists, by faith in natural chance. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : I MEANT TO SAY "PROTEINS" FORMING NATURALLY. FAST TYPING GETS ME NOWHERE AS USUAL. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Hi Ned. Long time no see. Always a reasonable chap that could discuss things maturely! Hope you are still enjoying your skiing. How about Mikaela Shiffrin eh? Cleaned up. You look a bit like Stenmark don't you? I think it's a lot more complex than this though Ned. The fact is, (since I was talking about facts in context of my original response to RAZD) that we only find things in life, such as DNA, protein, kinesin motors, etc...there is no sign that such design can come about naturally, indeed all the experiments render them, "ten miles off the target".Fine if you want to believe it happened. But basically I am saying that RAZD's claim contains a mixture of known facts and speculation, so I can't accept the entanglement claim.I believe we can create a FAIR disjunctive syllogism thus;"It's either biological chemistry in the sense of life's unique properties, or it is non-biological chemistry".I believe if we then say, "it is not biological chemistry" then it must be non-biological.So perhaps I do use the term, "organic" ineptly. I'll leave the science to the more experienced guys like you. Fair enough, we can just call it bio or non-bio, I don't mind. All I am really claiming is that I don't see any factual basis to believe bio comes from non-bio.Good to see you if I don't get back here.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

That is precisely why deductive logic leads us to the notion that because "life" has no sentience, and the chemistry is more sophisticated than the human level, that the talent must be coming from a greater intelligence.To say "life is a most talented chemist" is to commit anthropomorphism by giving chemistry features of a sentient agent. There are various types of fallacy for giving talents to things which don't exist as sentience, the pathetic fallacy, anthropopathism and anthropomorphism. So if you are trying to convince me that the Lord God is the designer, you are arguing a better case for that than I am. The only dumb thing I see is an association-fallacy you have committed. I don't idolize a book anyway, there you go again giving a book sentient properties. Rather obtuse of you. It is the Lord that I serve, and I do not spill blood or cause misery, which is nothing more than an association-fallacy. It would be about as smart as me arguing that you are german therefore in the 2nd world war caused blood and misery.Instead of telling me what is dumb, how about coming up with something smart? Well this is only a bare-assertion fallacy Paul. I don't accept the precepts of my faith because it was written down. Also I think it would be a false-comparison also, I don't think you can equate the bible with any statement just because you want to. I don't even know what this gibberish means, a lot between your ears I imagine, it seems tome your post had little value beyond having a pop at me. Your strawman version of what a creationist is and means and who I am and why I believe, I am afraid only exists in your brain.So if your post was meant to have an antagonising effect, right now all I can say is, "I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect" - Captain Kirk, The Wrath Of Khan.

AZPaul I won't personally mention the things I have done as a Christian, but your associating me with the crusades or whatever it is, or priestophiles or whatever, has nothing to do with me, it is an association-fallacy.Instead of saying what I have done as a Christian personally, all I will say is that there have been millions of people over the century, genuine Christians, who have given their lives for good work to please God. These actions don't support "bloodshed and misery".However I will admit that those genuine Christians don't make the news at ten. Do you know why that is? Because quietly going about doing what Christ tells you to do isn't an exciting news-story. Each year just doing your own little thing faithfully is boring to the world.To the world, one who SHOUTS "we are the Christians" then go on a crusade, yes - I admit they do make the news, however for that small portion that existed against all those that just go about doing what God has told them to do, they are the ones that get the publicity.CONCLUSION: Your ignorance of what a true Christian is, isn't even your own fault, because the Godless world is only excited by sin, which is why only sin makes the news.But if one starving baby is saved by God through me, then I have achieved a life's work.

Isn’t that also the logic that led some to believe in witches? Yes. Ignorance begets faith.We don’t know how/why something happens so it must be gods or devils.The part you keep missing is the sophistication of the human level continually improves, not just for understanding witchcraft, but for understanding the chemistry of abiogenesis among a whole lot of other sciences enjoying a golden age of knowledge and discovery today.We’ll figure it out. And the greater intelligence will be, as it has always been, us. Rather low bar don't ya think? You should be embarrassed by that. A useful literary device. Helps to build a picture in the mind's eye. Too bad it seems wasted on some. Oh, stop, Mike. Of course it’s the book. It tells you what to believe and why. It tells you the stories that you take on faith regardless of the reality. Without that book, Mike, you have no catechism. Of course you venerate the book. It is the foundation on which you build your entire religious fantasy.Without the book, Mike . well with your mindset you’d probably be into quantum crystals, pyramid power, scientology, homeopathy, republican politics or some other pseudoscience pap. But of course you do, Mike. If it wasn’t written down by some ancient desert nomads you wouldn’t know about it. You would not have been inculcated into the cult. Your particular cult wouldn’t even exist. You guys do, why can’t I? You don’t have to be a believer to spout the BS, do you? Again with the obvious. All we have to assess of one another over this medium is what we show and share. Frankly, Mike, you’re eminently pop-able. My straw man version of what a creationist is and means is indeed all in my mind and comes from more than a few encounters with the genre.If you are not a religiously motivated creationist in all that phrase means from my experiences then you sure fake it well.Wait ... is your name Mike or Poe?Edited by AZPaul3, : appaulin spellin

True christian^TM. Still using that? Have you any idea how absurdly funny that phrase has become?Feeling a bit sensitive Mike? Feel like you are being accused of all the sins of christianity, of all religion? Which are legion as we both know.Do good, Mike. That would be nice. But know that you consider yourself part of a club that does evil on this planet. You can go feed babies and pet kittens all you want but that stain is not going to go away. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

we're getting tangled up in off topic stuff instead of tanglements ...inevitable, I guess.Enjoy

You know everything is/gets/was entangled/intangled.Even discussions.To become even more entangled let's discuss Pilot Wave Theory.