Pre-civilizations spawned by time travelers?

[Deuce]

Twelve thousand years ago the North Pole was over Lake Michigan and when Atlantis sank ten thousand years ago it had moved up the Saint Lawrence.

Do you think the old race died out after Atlantis sank?

Literally everything in this post is wrong.

 

[zyzygy]

Literally everything in this post is wrong.

True.

 

[Exquisitor]

Literally everything in this post is wrong.

Do you mean the axial precession goes clockwise?

 

[Exquisitor]

Everybody? Even the ones who couldn't write?

Everybody, even you wished they had an ark.

There may have even been an ark in a bigger flood earlier and this is why it got so stuck in everybody's mind.

 

[KevinKohler]

The text books regarding Evolution will tell you that life began from the torrential rains hitting hard against the Mountainside for millions of years, and as mineral deposit started slowly draining into the ocean depths, a chemical primordial complex soup started to percolate, and from a state of nothingness, life began.

In other words they teach that before the Apes, that we came from a bucket of slime from nonliving matter.

It violates the law of conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics, meaning it is scientifically impossible what they say predates the Apes. But your question is 'what do they say.'

And what I just told you is what they say verbatim.

Not just rain, radiation. No radiation, no life.

 

[soylentgreen]

The text books regarding Evolution will tell you that life began from the torrential rains hitting hard against the Mountainside for millions of years, and as mineral deposit started slowly draining into the ocean depths, a chemical primordial complex soup started to percolate, and from a state of nothingness, life began.

In other words they teach that before the Apes, that we came from a bucket of slime from nonliving matter.

It violates the law of conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics, meaning it is scientifically impossible what they say predates the Apes. But your question is 'what do they say.'

And what I just told you is what they say verbatim.

The text book offers only one means by which life could have started.

And no violation of laws has happened. Yours is an assumption of a closed system which the earth is not as it has a constant external energy source, the sun.

 

[Davey]

The text book offers only one means by which life could have started.

And no violation of laws has happened. Yours is an assumption of a closed system which the earth is not as it has a constant external energy source, the sun.

Okay, how did life begin?

 

[Davey]

The text book offers only one means by which life could have started.

And no violation of laws has happened. Yours is an assumption of a closed system which the earth is not as it has a constant external energy source, the sun.

The influx of heat energy into an open system (as, say, from the sun onto the earth) will not naturally improve the organization of that system, as evolution would require, but will increase the entropy (that is, the disorganization) of the system more rapidly than if the system remained closed. To verify this, one need only examine the simple thermodynamic equation for heat flow into an open system.

Where do evolutionists get the quaint and quite unscientific notion that solar energy is a sufficient explanation to account for evolution? Solar energy has not generated life or evolution on Mars or Venus, so how can it do so on Earth?

The fact is that any system which does experience an increase in its organized complexity must be much more than merely an open system with external energy available to it.

These are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. In addition, the system's growth in complexity must be directed by a previously created program and then energized through a previously designed energy storage-and-conversion mechanism.

For example, the growth of a seed into a plant is directed b~ its qenetic code and implemented by the mechanism of photosynthesis. Similarly the "evolution" of a building from a pile of bricks and lumber is directed by a blueprint and implemented by the construction machinery and the muscular skills of the builders.

The evolution of the earth's biosphere in the space/time continuum, from primeval chemicals to a complex array of plants, animals and human beings represents a far greater increase in organized complexity than a plant or a building, yet it apparently had no directing program (chance?) and no solar energy conversion mechanism (mutations?).

Thus, the entropy principle does indeed define any significant amount of upward naturalistic evolution as completely unscientific. Evolution would require an unending string of miracles to make it work! (ICR)

 

[Deuce]

Do you mean the axial precession goes clockwise?

It's like someone made an AI watch the entire works of Alex Jones and a video of someone putting a dictionary in a blender.

 

[Threegoofs]

Do you mean the axial precession goes clockwise?

I think he meant that the magnetic pole actually went DOWN the St Lawrence Seaway.

But it has to wait for the locks to be open.

Duh!

 

[soylentgreen]

Okay, how did life begin?

In various means. Hot pools from thermal activity on land. Volcanic activity under the sea. the chemical mix from the primal soup that was the atmosphere at the time. All of these methods would have spawned life at the beginning.

 

[soylentgreen]

The influx of heat energy into an open system (as, say, from the sun onto the earth) will not naturally improve the organization of that system, as evolution would require, but will increase the entropy (that is, the disorganization) of the system more rapidly than if the system remained closed. To verify this, one need only examine the simple thermodynamic equation for heat flow into an open system.

Where do evolutionists get the quaint and quite unscientific notion that solar energy is a sufficient explanation to account for evolution? Solar energy has not generated life or evolution on Mars or Venus, so how can it do so on Earth?

The fact is that any system which does experience an increase in its organized complexity must be much more than merely an open system with external energy available to it.

These are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. In addition, the system's growth in complexity must be directed by a previously created program and then energized through a previously designed energy storage-and-conversion mechanism.

For example, the growth of a seed into a plant is directed b~ its qenetic code and implemented by the mechanism of photosynthesis. Similarly the "evolution" of a building from a pile of bricks and lumber is directed by a blueprint and implemented by the construction machinery and the muscular skills of the builders.

The evolution of the earth's biosphere in the space/time continuum, from primeval chemicals to a complex array of plants, animals and human beings represents a far greater increase in organized complexity than a plant or a building, yet it apparently had no directing program (chance?) and no solar energy conversion mechanism (mutations?).

Thus, the entropy principle does indeed define any significant amount of upward naturalistic evolution as completely unscientific. Evolution would require an unending string of miracles to make it work! (ICR)

Now you are just being ridiculous. Only you are making such a foolish association between solar energy and evolution. The explanation of the sun just demonstrates what a lie the closed system nonsense you have a of laws are and nothing more.

 

[zyzygy]

In various means. Hot pools from thermal activity on land. Volcanic activity under the sea. the chemical mix from the primal soup that was the atmosphere at the time. All of these methods would have spawned life at the beginning.

And amino acids from meteorites.

The occurrence of extraterrestrial organic compounds is a key for understanding prebiotic organic synthesis in the universe. In particular, amino acids have been studied in carbonaceous meteorites for almost 50 years. Here we report ten new amino acids identified in the Murchison meteorite, including a new family of nine hydroxy amino acids. The discovery of mostly C3 and C4 structural isomers of hydroxy amino acids provides insight into the mechanisms of extraterrestrial synthesis of organic compounds. A complementary experiment suggests that these compounds could be produced from aldehydes and ammonia on the meteorite parent body. This study indicates that the meteoritic amino acids could be synthesized by mechanisms in addition to the Strecker reaction, which has been proposed to be the main synthetic pathway to produce amino acids.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00693-9

 

[soylentgreen]

And amino acids from meteorites.

The occurrence of extraterrestrial organic compounds is a key for understanding prebiotic organic synthesis in the universe. In particular, amino acids have been studied in carbonaceous meteorites for almost 50 years. Here we report ten new amino acids identified in the Murchison meteorite, including a new family of nine hydroxy amino acids. The discovery of mostly C3 and C4 structural isomers of hydroxy amino acids provides insight into the mechanisms of extraterrestrial synthesis of organic compounds. A complementary experiment suggests that these compounds could be produced from aldehydes and ammonia on the meteorite parent body. This study indicates that the meteoritic amino acids could be synthesized by mechanisms in addition to the Strecker reaction, which has been proposed to be the main synthetic pathway to produce amino acids.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00693-9

The idea that there was only one way to produce life or that it was tried just once and succeeded is basically a theist nonsense approach to the question.
There were numerous ways life could have first evolved. They would have all been tried and failed many times before life finally gained a foothold.

 

[Davey]

Now you are just being ridiculous. Only you are making such a foolish association between solar energy and evolution. The explanation of the sun just demonstrates what a lie the closed system nonsense you have a of laws are and nothing more.

Yawn.

 

[Davey]

The idea that there was only one way to produce life or that it was tried just once and succeeded is basically a theist nonsense approach to the question.
There were numerous ways life could have first evolved. They would have all been tried and failed many times before life finally gained a foothold.

Name me one of many ways life could have evolved that has been proven.

 

[Davey]

In various means. Hot pools from thermal activity on land. Volcanic activity under the sea. the chemical mix from the primal soup that was the atmosphere at the time. All of these methods would have spawned life at the beginning.

What is your proof?

 

[Deuce]

Name me one of many ways life could have evolved that has been proven.

Are you asking about abiogenesis or evolution? you seem to confuse the two.

 

[Davey]

Now you are just being ridiculous. Only you are making such a foolish association between solar energy and evolution. The explanation of the sun just demonstrates what a lie the closed system nonsense you have a of laws are and nothing more.

That's all you got is "that's a lie?" I was hoping for more.

 

[Davey]

Are you asking about abiogenesis or evolution? you seem to confuse the two.

What were you talking about? Let's say both. Quit stalling and answer the questions, geez.

 

[Deuce]

That's all you got is "that's a lie?" I was hoping for more.

There's not much else to say. You are fundamentally confused about thermodynamics. You keep talking about a "closed system," but we don't have one. Earth is not a closed system. There's a constant energy input. Locally, this means that complexity of the system absolutely can increase. Now, if you take the solar system as a whole, there's an energy loss. Lots of energy is radiating off into deep space, from the sun and from every object orbiting it.

Thermodynamics is satisfied.

 

[Davey]

There's not much else to say. You are fundamentally confused about thermodynamics. You keep talking about a "closed system," but we don't have one. Earth is not a closed system. There's a constant energy input. Locally, this means that complexity of the system absolutely can increase. Now, if you take the solar system as a whole, there's an energy loss. Lots of energy is radiating off into deep space, from the sun and from every object orbiting it.

Thermodynamics is satisfied.

I have not once mentioned a closed system.

 

[Davey]

There's not much else to say. You are fundamentally confused about thermodynamics. You keep talking about a "closed system," but we don't have one. Earth is not a closed system. There's a constant energy input. Locally, this means that complexity of the system absolutely can increase. Now, if you take the solar system as a whole, there's an energy loss. Lots of energy is radiating off into deep space, from the sun and from every object orbiting it.

Thermodynamics is satisfied.

Looking back on a few of your posts you don't know what your are talking about. You put words in my mouth and distract instead of answering questions.

Same old tired act.

 

[Deuce]

Looking back on a few of your posts you don't know what your are talking about. You put words in my mouth and distract instead of answering questions.

Same old tired act.

Fine, you called us an open system... and then described us like we were a closed system.

Locally, complexity can increase on the earth due to the energy input from the sun. Thermodynamics is satisfied. You have yet to rebut this.

 

[Davey]

Fine, you called us an open system... and then described us like we were a closed system.

Locally, complexity can increase on the earth due to the energy input from the sun. Thermodynamics is satisfied. You have yet to rebut this.

Where do evolutionists get the quaint and quite unscientific notion that solar energy is a sufficient explanation to account for evolution? Solar energy has not generated life or evolution on Mars or Venus, so how can it do so on Earth?