Sewell's supposed proof abiogenesis is impossible...

The Pixie

Well-known member
This is the work of Granville Sewell, a mathematician of such mind-boggling inanity that he thinks water cannot condense because that would be a decrease in both H-entropy and O-entropy.

His latest nonsense is nothing about entropy; it is a very simple "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible:

Well, I have a very simple proof that the biological problem #3 posed above is also impossible to solve, that does fit in the margin of this document. All one needs to do is realize that if a solution were found, we would have proved something obviously false, that a few (four, apparently) fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into libraries full of science texts and encyclopedias, computers connected to monitors, keyboards, laser printers and the Internet, cars, trucks, airplanes, nuclear power plants and Apple iPhones.

In summary, then, the unintelligent forces of physics alone cannot produce life because the unintelligent forces of physics alone cannot produce life.

Is this guy a genius or what? *

He laments: "Unfortunately, most biologists don’t seem to be impressed by such simple proofs;" No kidding!

* The answer is "what".
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
This is the work of Granville Sewell, a mathematician of such mind-boggling inanity that he thinks water cannot condense because that would be a decrease in both H-entropy and O-entropy.

His latest nonsense is nothing about entropy; it is a very simple "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible:

Well, I have a very simple proof that the biological problem #3 posed above is also impossible to solve, that does fit in the margin of this document. All one needs to do is realize that if a solution were found, we would have proved something obviously false, that a few (four, apparently) fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into libraries full of science texts and encyclopedias, computers connected to monitors, keyboards, laser printers and the Internet, cars, trucks, airplanes, nuclear power plants and Apple iPhones.

In summary, then, the unintelligent forces of physics alone cannot produce life because the unintelligent forces of physics alone cannot produce life.

Is this guy a genius or what? *

He laments: "Unfortunately, most biologists don’t seem to be impressed by such simple proofs;" No kidding!

* The answer is "what".
Fallacy of composition?
 

Komodo

Well-known member
Fallacy of composition?
Primarily an argument from incredulity, I'd say. ("Come on, look at this iPhone! Are you telling me...")

ETA: It's an odd version of that argument, because the things he finds impossible to explain as products of natural forces (books, power plants, computer stuff) are all obviously products of human brains. So what he's really arguing is that it's inconceivable that natural forces are responsible for human brains. But for some reason he doesn't seem to be saying that directly, I don't know why.
 
Last edited:

CrowCross

Well-known member
Give it a few years, and it will probably happen. The science is heading in the right direction, and every year new advances are made, and that gap God hides in shrinks a bit more.
WHAT!!!!! You mention the God of the gaps.....THEN play the science of the gaps card????? Oh my.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
The point about the gaps is that they are getting ever smaller. Science advances, religion retreats. So yes, I mentioned both,
As the science of ID has been demonstrating, the gaps between science and faith are getting wider and the only real act of incredulity is the inability to see a Creator in His creation.
 

rossum

Well-known member
As the science of ID has been demonstrating, the gaps between science and faith are getting wider and the only real act of incredulity is the inability to see a Creator in His creation.
Indeed. We have noticed your inability to discern Vishnu in the universe He created.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
No they're not.....biomaterial in dino's just drove a wedge deep into your gap and split it wide open.
A discovery made by evolutionists, and presented by evolutionists. Who is doing actual science on this right? Evolutionists.

What science have creationists done on this? Nothing. In fact, what science have creationists done ever?

Here is real science, by real scientists, published in a real science journal, about how biomaterial was preserved:
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Indeed. We have noticed your inability to discern Vishnu in the universe He created.
Much to the discontent of Christians, ID makes no preference as to the designing influence. I myself see the Christian/Hebrew God as the only logical choice but that's me.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
A discovery made by evolutionists, and presented by evolutionists. Who is doing actual science on this right? Evolutionists.

What science have creationists done on this? Nothing. In fact, what science have creationists done ever?

Here is real science, by real scientists, published in a real science journal, about how biomaterial was preserved:
A science that closes any avenues to the truth which includes Intelligent design is worthless.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
A discovery made by evolutionists, and presented by evolutionists. Who is doing actual science on this right? Evolutionists.

What science have creationists done on this? Nothing. In fact, what science have creationists done ever?

Here is real science, by real scientists, published in a real science journal, about how biomaterial was preserved:
Besides your are perpetrating a myth, ID does plenty of research as an example here
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
A science that closes any avenues to the truth which includes Intelligent design is worthless.
That would be creationism, given it want to shutdown evolution on the basis that it contradicts literal interpretations of the Bible.

Real science has no desire to shut down avenues of research - only claims of pseudo-science. if ID can produce actual science, scientists will take note.

Besides your are perpetrating a myth, ID does plenty of research as an example here
Can you point me to a paper that is about design, as opposed to anti-evolution? I could not see one.
 
Last edited:

Cisco Qid

Active member
That would be creationism, given it want to shutdown evolution on the basis that it contradicts literal interpretations of the Bible.

Real science has no desire to shut down avenues of research - only claims of pseudo-science. if ID can produce actual science, scientists will take note.
That is so much hogwash, neodarwinist will ban and anyone who even hints of being pro-id, even to the point of banning anyone that is foolish enough to hint or write that there might exist and an intelligent agent other than naturalism involved. You have countless examples of professors and professionals who have lost their job over this. You see, the son's of the devil seek prominence power and glory. In medieval times its was the church now it's the halls of higher education.
Can you point me to a paper that is about design, as opposed to anti-evolution? I could not see one.
Only a few are anti-evolution. But why should they not all be anti-evolution since naturalism is pitted against ID.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
A discovery made by evolutionists, and presented by evolutionists. Who is doing actual science on this right? Evolutionists.

What science have creationists done on this? Nothing. In fact, what science have creationists done ever?

Here is real science, by real scientists, published in a real science journal, about how biomaterial was preserved:
They seemed to like iron as an answer...

Iron



Used Chicken and Ostrich blood

Put in an anti-coagulant

Put it in a centrifuge to remove serum.

Put it in a centrifuge to take out platelets

Took out white blood cells

Purified and broke down the red blood cells to added a chemical to expose the hemoglobin which contains iron atoms to do the preserving.



Soaked tissue for 2 years in a laboratory environment. No insects, water, microbes, plant roots etc….which would have been present when the organism were buried.



In the natural conditions the blood would have clotted and hardened and the iron would not have been available.





https://creationtoday.org/media/dinosaurs-take-a-bite-out-of-time-season-5-episode-04/



8 min mark.



click here.

When I talk on this subject with Evos and ask how the biomaterial can survive for 65 + MY's I generally get 2 answers. The first is often I don't know, it just does somehow while the second is that it is preserved by iron. Mary Schweitzer (from the above link) needed a way to preserve the biomaterial or the concept of deep time will unravel. She concluded iron would do the trick. But in order to get it to work a lot of preperation had to be performed.

In order to conduct the experiment and have hopes of it working here's what they had to do...

They used Chicken and Ostrich blood because they thought they were the closest to dinosaurs.
Put in an anti-coagulant
Put it in a centrifuge to remove serum.
Put it in a centrifuge to take out platelets
Took out white blood cells
Purified and broke down the red blood cells and added a chemical to expose the hemoglobin which contains iron atoms to do the preserving.

Yeah, that process mimics the real world.

Tissue was then soaked in the modified blood for 2 years in a laboratory environment. That is, no insects, water, microbes, plant roots etc were present….which would have been present when the organisms were buried.
From the heavily modified blood Mary Schweitzer was able to extrapolate 2 years into 65+ MY's and suggest that's how the biomaterial may have been preserved.
But, as we all very well know in the natural conditions the blood would have clotted and hardened and the iron would not have been available.

Is iron the answer...no. Iron fails.


Ref to the above...start around the 8 min mark.
[VIDEO]
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
That is so much hogwash, neodarwinist will ban and anyone who even hints of being pro-id, even to the point of banning anyone that is foolish enough to hint or write that there might exist and an intelligent agent other than naturalism involved. You have countless examples of professors and professionals who have lost their job over this. You see, the son's of the devil seek prominence power and glory. In medieval times its was the church now it's the halls of higher education.
They lost their jobs for promoting - teaching in particular - pseudo-science as real science.

They did not lose their jobs for research ID. There is a huge difference.

ID needs to do the science first., and show it is valid, before teaching it as real science.

Only a few are anti-evolution. But why should they not all be anti-evolution since naturalism is pitted against ID.
Oh, if only a few do it, I guess that is okay. How many real universities have banned IDists? Only a few.
 
Top