BTW: Making the letters big and a different color does not make your statement more true. It just looks like you are using emotionalism to make your argument. A bit unscientific, I think.
I made the letters bigger as an expression to say this, "Have you read anything I said?", not emotionalism. You should know that about me by now.
What I know about you is you like telling people that their beliefs are silly, stupid, and deceptions. I would hardly consider that an unemotional assessment.
Personally, I love this debate because any logical person sees the truth through the disinformation, and I happen to love truth, and I love helping people see it.
See what I mean? Now I am not a logical person. Thanks for keeping the debate about the evidence.
Do you even know what the second law of thermodynamics states? We make complex molecules all the time right in our bodies. Are you saying that doesn't take place? How, then, did you grow from a small child into the big you are now?
Here's a hint from Wikipedia:
"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.""...entropy of an isolated system...". Isolated from what? Thermodynamic influences, perhaps?
Is the Earth's surface and sea an "isolated system", thermodynamically?
We're going in circles here. I've explained that molecules tend toward their simplest stable state.
Are you saying this this isn't true?
No, because the statement is true. However it is incomplete. The "simplest stable state" will change with the amount of energy in a system. Water becomes separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules in the presence of electricity. If they are then put in the same container and a spark is introduced, they give off a lot of energy and become water again.
The simplest stable state depends on the conditions: temperature, chemical concentrations, presence of solvents, magnetic fields, catalysts...etc.
As I said, the making of complex molecules in cells is assisted by intelligently designed machines therein. This is a far from from claiming that they self-assemble in the environment. In fact, all the difference in the world.
"Self assemble" is a misnomer. No compounds "self assemble". The conditions become right for a chemical reaction to occur.
You're argument is comparable to this:
Hey, water flows uphill. I know because my well is underground but water still comes out at the faucets.
Not good.
I guess you've never seen a spring or an artesian well.
Always? No molecules ever get more complex or reside in a higher energy state? Please explain this using current chemical and thermodynamic laws.
You're being blatantly deceptive here and you must know it.
To be deceptive, I would have to know it....that's part of the definition of deceptive. My asking this question was to get an idea of your knowledge level in chemistry. It might have been a bit mocking, but it was not deceptive.
So, do you believe that molecules self-assemble into proteins?
I believe that molecules chemically combine into proteins in the right conditions.
Yet I still respond with: I have viewed it and do not find his incredulity to be a compelling rebuttal to abiogenesis.
