Koen Robeys

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 If you realize that, you also realize it is a childish play with words to claim that life can *not* come from non life.

@Koenrobeys @NotEvolution1 It is enough to realize that. That still doesn't mean life can come from just anything, or anything other than life for that matter!

Naturalism is false

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 It is enough to realize that stuff can, and does, come from non-stuff!

You haven't said anything everyone hasn't already known, nor proven anything at all about anything coming into being from it. Stuff produces stuff is literally the law of causality. Stuff comes from stuff does not mean everything comes from anything. **Fact-Check: Post by @Koenrobeys (ID 2067295358078591131)** **Claim in the post:** “I only said that water (and other stuff) coming from nonwater proves that it is extremely childish to claim that life cannot come from nonlife.” ### Summary Verdict The post accurately notes that water can form from non-water precursors through ordinary chemical reactions. However, the assertion that this example *proves* it is “extremely childish” to regard the origin of life (life from non-life) as a significant problem is **logically invalid** and **scientifically unsupported**. The analogy constitutes a false equivalence that conflates simple molecular synthesis with the emergence of complex biological systems. It does not resolve or trivialize the substantial scientific and philosophical challenges associated with abiogenesis. ### Detailed Analysis **1. The water example is factually correct but limited in scope.** Water (H₂O) forms readily from hydrogen (H₂) and oxygen (O₂) via the reaction: **2H₂ + O₂ → 2H₂O** (releasing energy). This is a well-understood, routinely observed chemical process involving the rearrangement of existing atoms into a simple inorganic molecule. No new matter is created *ex nihilo*, and no novel informational or organizational properties emerge beyond basic chemistry. Similar rearrangements occur constantly in nature and laboratories (e.g., salt from sodium and chlorine, or countless other compounds). **2. The analogy to abiogenesis fails on multiple levels.** Abiogenesis refers to the hypothetical natural transition from non-living chemical systems to the first living cells capable of metabolism, self-replication, and heredity. This is not equivalent to forming a simple molecule like water for the following reasons: - **Category difference**: Water formation is a straightforward chemical reaction. The origin of life requires the simultaneous or sequential solution to multiple interdependent problems, including: - Prebiotic synthesis and stability of complex polymers (proteins, RNA/DNA) in water, which tends to hydrolyze such molecules (the “water problem”). - Origin of biological homochirality (exclusive use of L-amino acids and D-sugars). - Emergence of specified biological information (the genetic code and functional sequences in macromolecules). - Compartmentalization via membranes and the integration of metabolism with replication. - **Empirical status**: Water formation is directly observable and replicable. The full process of abiogenesis has **never been observed** experimentally, nor has any laboratory demonstration produced a self-sustaining, replicating cellular system from purely prebiotic starting materials. Decades of research, beginning with the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment and continuing in RNA-world, hydrothermal-vent, and other models, have yielded limited successes with simple organic building blocks under carefully controlled conditions. However, these fall far short of producing life. Leading researchers describe the problem as one of the most difficult and unsolved in science. - **Information and complexity**: Life exhibits high levels of specified complexity and semantic information (e.g., DNA sequences that code for functional proteins). Simple chemical reactions like water formation do not generate or explain this informational dimension. This distinction is central to debates in origins-of-life research and is not addressed by the water analogy. **3. Scientific context on abiogenesis.** The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that life arose through natural processes of increasing chemical and organizational complexity on the early Earth. This remains a working assumption rather than an established, demonstrated fact. Authoritative sources note that the transition from non-life to life “has not been observed experimentally” and that key mechanisms remain unresolved. Skepticism that unguided natural processes readily explain the origin of life is not “childish.” It reflects documented gaps between prebiotic chemistry and the minimal requirements for even the simplest living cell. Researchers across perspectives acknowledge these hurdles; some (e.g., Stephen Meyer and James Tour) argue they are more severe than often portrayed in popular accounts, while others maintain that solutions will eventually be found. **4. Philosophical and debate context.** In the surrounding thread, the discussion concerns whether “stuff coming from non-stuff” (or life from non-life) poses a problem for naturalism. The water example illustrates ordinary chemistry within an existing universe governed by physical laws. It does not address ultimate origins (e.g., why there is something rather than nothing) or the specific emergence of biological organization and information. Equating the two and labeling the distinction “childish” is rhetorical rather than substantive. The opposing position in the thread—that life from non-life differs qualitatively and remains unexplained—aligns with the current state of scientific knowledge. ### Conclusion The post correctly identifies that chemical reactions produce new compounds from precursors. It does **not** prove that concerns about abiogenesis are childish or that the water analogy resolves the difficulties. The claim rests on a flawed analogy that ignores fundamental differences in complexity, information content, and empirical support. Serious scientific literature treats the origin of life as a profound, unresolved problem rather than a trivial extension of everyday chemistry. This fact-check is based on established principles of chemistry, the documented status of origins-of-life research, and logical analysis of the analogy presented.

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 Yers I did! Stuff can, and does, come from non-stuff! You even had to admit water was a good example! Game, set and match, and thanks for playing!

@Koenrobeys @NotEvolution1 you haven't made any point.

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 No, the point is still the same 🤣

@Koenrobeys @NotEvolution1 And I proved you wrong.

@anatoliisharii @DeHaas87 Is that also true for those cruise missiles landing on shopping malls?

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 I only said that water (and other stuff) coming from nonwater proves that it is extremely childish to claim that life cannot come from nonlife.

@Koenrobeys @NotEvolution1 Except that you're making it sound like because we know there are certain things then anything goes. You said you don't know, but that violates the law of contradiction. Fundamental to all of science is ex nihilo nihil fit, out of nothing nothing comes.

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 I said I do not know. But water from nonwater happens every day (and salt from nonsalt and sugar from nonsugar too) and that proves you cannot exclude stuff from nonstuff in general.

So you just implied being from non-being is possible. So then what about being from non-being if there is no God? And water from non-water happens throughout the day every day when molecules that are not water come together to form water. There's no surprise nor gotcha there. It's just natural. But being from non-being is not natural, and necessitates a miracle.

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 We don't know how that happened. Tjat's another topic. My point is best illustrated by the water example

@Koenrobeys @NotEvolution1 Just out of curiosity, does that include being from non-being?

A cartoonist who depicted Putin and the Kremlin in his drawings, who humiliated Putin and the Kremlin, has been killed in Europe. This is what you will read everywhere. The Western press is so honest and principled that it will tell you this. But it will forget to mention that this person was listed on the Ukrainian kill list website “Myrotvorets.” It will also forget to mention that this person repeatedly insulted the Ukrainian authorities, the Russian opposition, the Ukrainian armed forces, Ukrainian oligarchs, Zelensky, Yermak, Akhmetov, and many others. The European press will forget about that. A cartoonist who drew caricatures of Putin has been killed. The case is solved. How simple, isn’t it?

Het conflict Iran-(USA+Israël) is nog lang niet ten einde en het nieuwe akkoord geeft Iran meer controle en strategische hefbomen dan ooit ('managing the strait of Hormuz'). Dat is een krachtig signaal dat we, zeker in Europa, moeten opschieten met die energietransitie. De vraag is niet of er een volgende crisis komt maar wel wanneer.

@gerardgovers @hansvb @LodeCossaer Meer volledig is het een call die je financiert door de leverancier een put aan dezelfde prijs te geven :-)

@hansvb @LodeCossaer Natuurlijk is het tweede orde: maar het is een speculatieve beslissing (een call). Je wil de garantie dat je energie krijgt tegen een vaste prijs, ongeacht van de marktbewegingen. En als de marktprijs stijgt zoals in 2022 dan doe je een goede zaak.

Ik wou dat het me lukte om uit te leggen dat 'speculatie' echt op geen enkele manier de boogeyman is dat veel linksen er van maken, voornamelijk gebaseerd op een fundamenteel onbegrip. Zekerheid in proberen bouwen in onzekerheid is niet 'slecht'.

@SEeckelaerts @Stevenlemmens5 @StijnBruers @jogannez @TatumT_WG @science_dirk @MCleaver @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 Golflengtes?? Als jij kleur definieert als golflengte moet je vanaf nu gametencontr- oeps, ik bedoel spectraalanalyses uitvoeren om te zien of de lucht blauw is! #ZwaarSarcasme

Zelfs dat niet. Een golflengte van bv. 475nm (blauw) + een golflengte van bv. 675nm (rood) creëert geen nieuwe 'menggolflengte'. Die golflengtes blijven discreet bestaan. De kleur 'paars' ontstaat doordat je hersenen het mengsignaal van 2 verschillende lichtreceptoren integreren tot paars (niet-spectrale kleur).

"Kunnen biologische mannen zwanger worden?" Voor deze Amerikaanse gynaecologe die als 'expert" sprak in het parlement een zeer moeilijke vraag. Ze vindt immers dat we "inclusief" moeten spreken. En dus is het agressief om te zeggen dat biologische mannen niet zwanger kunnen worden. Dat is polariserend, volgens haar. Kijk, ik ben voor de vrijheid van iedereen om van zichzelf te vinden dat hij een man of een vrouw is. Ik ben er ook voor mensen aan te spreken zoals ze dat zelf willen. Dat is een vorm van beleefdheid en erkenning van hoe ze zich voelen over zichzelf. Maar als het zo ver gaat dat artsen niet eens meer de waarheid willen zeggen, of ze weigeren onder ogen te zien, omdat van sommige mensen gedacht wordt dat ze de waarheid niet aankunnen, dan zijn we helemaal van het pad af. De waarheid bestaat. En van artsen bij uitstek mag verwacht worden dat ze de waarheid spreken op grond van de wetenschap. Ik herinner eraan dat ook bij corona de artsen niet meer de waarheid spraken omwille van politieke wanen. Onder andere dat het vaccin 100 % safe was en geen bijwerkingen kon hebben omdat de waarheid zeggen zou kunnen leiden tot minder bereidheid voor vaccinatie tegen corona. Nooit meer zo'n misleidende onzin alstublieft.

@Stevenlemmens5 @StijnBruers @jogannez @SEeckelaerts @TatumT_WG @science_dirk @MCleaver @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 Hoe, dus slechtzienden hebben geen zesde zintuig??

@StijnBruers @jogannez @SEeckelaerts @Koenrobeys @TatumT_WG @science_dirk @MCleaver @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 Geen licht (0) is geen nieuwe kleur: Mensen die door een ontwikkelingsstoornis (DSD) of steriliteit geen gameten produceren, hebben geen 'nieuw geslacht'. Hun lichaam volgt nog steeds de anatomische blauwdruk van een man of vrouw. Kaalheid is ook geen haarkleur.

@StijnBruers @SEeckelaerts @Stevenlemmens5 @jogannez @TatumT_WG @science_dirk @MCleaver @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 Natuurlijk weten biologen dat een ontwikkeling erg verstoord kan zijn: letterlijk de basis vd evolutietheorie. Soit, als heel ander onderwerp kan iedereen zien dat "er zijn vier geslachten" niveau "de wereld is plat is: je hebt moeten toegeven dat geen enkele bioloog dat zegt

@Koenrobeys @SEeckelaerts @Stevenlemmens5 @jogannez @TatumT_WG @science_dirk @MCleaver @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 die biologen moeten dan wel erkennen dat ze niet iedereen zonder willekeur een geslacht kunnen toewijzen, en dat ze dus werken met een onvolledige definitie van geslacht. Maar mijn definitie is wel volledig en dus beter...

@adriaan73289035 @science_dirk @vissermc76 @Jd020 @SEeckelaerts @StijnBruers @TatumT_WG @MCleaver @Stevenlemmens5 @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 @X Ja, het gaat echt ver hoor: geslacht definiëren in termen van gameten is "kwakzalverij"; de hele cinema!

@Koenrobeys @science_dirk @vissermc76 @Jd020 @SEeckelaerts @StijnBruers @TatumT_WG @MCleaver @Stevenlemmens5 @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 @X Lol. Science ontkenner Dirk dus.

@StijnBruers @SEeckelaerts @Stevenlemmens5 @jogannez @TatumT_WG @science_dirk @MCleaver @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 Kijk, het is heel simpel: aan al die biologen die zeggen dat er twee geslachten zijn kan je zien dat "er zijn vier geslachten" niveau "de wereld is plat" is. Zoek je zelf even de denkfout op die je daar heeft gebracht?

@Koenrobeys @SEeckelaerts @Stevenlemmens5 @jogannez @TatumT_WG @science_dirk @MCleaver @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 Kijk, het is simpel: al die biologen die zeggen dat er 2 geslachten zijn, hebben een specifieke interpretatie/definitie van geslacht waarmee je niet ondubbelzinnig en onwillekeurig alle mensen netjes kan onderverdelen in geslachten...

@adriaan73289035 @science_dirk @vissermc76 @Jd020 @SEeckelaerts @StijnBruers @TatumT_WG @MCleaver @Stevenlemmens5 @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 @X Laat je door Dirk zotskap niet van de wijs brengen! Hij had beweerd dat "volgens biologen mensen kunnen van geslacht veranderen" en toen ik hem een Nobelprijs winnende bioloog die het letterlijk tegendeel schreef toonde heeft hij me loeiend en blazend van frustratie geblokt 🤣

@science_dirk @vissermc76 @Jd020 @SEeckelaerts @Koenrobeys @StijnBruers @TatumT_WG @MCleaver @Stevenlemmens5 @MrsWaters10 @DeHaas87 @X Ik dus.

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 Tuttut! The only thing my logic says is there is nothing wrong with water, or whatever other stuff you might appy it to, coming from non-water. Do you think that @NotEvolution1 missed this simple insight by sheer superficiality?

@Koenrobeys @NotEvolution1 You're being obtuse. Kangaroos can't come from cows either, but by your logic they can.

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 As you just said yourself: water can come from non-water. So why are people pretending that any "stuff", like say, water, or life, cannot. I think it is either deep, deep ignorance or conscious misrepresentation: what do you think?

@Koenrobeys @NotEvolution1 "Stuff coming from non-stuff"? Sounds like you might be dodging. Care to clarify what you're talking about now? We were talking about specifics. Now you've gone vague.

@ProdigalNo_More @NotEvolution1 So you *know* that "stuff coming from non-stuff" is plain as, well, water. But @NotEvolution1 is trying to present it as a problem that can't be overcome: why do you think he is making such a childish mis-representation?

@Koenrobeys @NotEvolution1 We can make water from non-water; try that with life.