The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2016, 09:52 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 01:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "
I consider life supernatural in the sense that it violates the Laws of Physics/chemistry."


No, you presuppose it is supernatural by misunderstanding chemistry and physics.

If you make the claim that life is supernatural, you need to demonstrate a couple of things:
1) that it is in fact not explainable in natural terms (it is and we call the hypotheses of life's origins "abiogenesis" and none of these hypotheses violate the basics of physics or chemistry)
2) supernature exists from which a supernatural cause can emanate
3) the supernatural cause occurred and is plausible


You "considering" it because you can't conceive of life being natural is meaningless presuppositionalist faith-based bullshit.


To everyone else:
The fuck is going on with all of the presuppositionalists? Tomato invite a bunch of Liberty flunkies? Tomato puppets? Consider

Not true. Abiogenesis relies on chemical system acquiring self preservation. Chemical will always lower energy and increase entropy when left to themselves. Living things take on energy to increase entropy. A violation of chemistry is supernatural.

You are saying that a violation of the known principles of science is supernatural. Place yourself back in the days of Geocentric model, back near the middle ages. If someone argued for a supernatural element because the geocentric model couldn't explain a phenomenon, would you disagree? Why?

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Not true. Abiogenesis relies on chemical system acquiring self preservation.

A fine example of "not even wrong". Facepalm

Quote:Chemical will always lower energy and increase entropy when left to themselves. Living things take on energy to increase entropy. A violation of chemistry is supernatural.

But they are never left to themselves. They exist in an environment rich with energy, with more being added all day long.

Your understanding of chemistry is simply wrong.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 09:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Not true. Abiogenesis relies on chemical system acquiring self preservation. Chemical will always lower energy and increase entropy when left to themselves. Living things take on energy to increase entropy. A violation of chemistry is supernatural.

You don't know what you're talking about.
This Nobel laureate needs none of your woo to work on the origins of life, and YOU have no way to refute his chemistry and biochemistry.
No matter if we have all the answers now or not, slapping on the explanation "oh the gods must have done it" is never justified.




This is laughable. He does a bunch of hand waving and high level description to describe the RNA first world. I used to believe in abiogenesis, but I no longer do. The research in the last 30 years have effectively ruled it out as implausible. I could write an encyclopedia on the issues with abiogensis.
Each bullet could be a book.
nucleic acids are unstable outside of a cell
homochirality
proteins are needed for DNA but DNA is needed to make proteins
how did membranes form
how did metabolism form
How did replication, metabolism all form in a membrane- The ultimate example of irreducible complexity.
The by-products of necessary reactions prevent other necessary reactions
Despite decades of research, RNA has not been demonstrated to replicate itself. Under controlled lab conditions and pure concentrated chemicals, it peeters out and doesn't finish.
He starts with RNA, but the real trick is getting to RNA or DNA from simple chemistry. No naturally occurring replicator molecule has ever been found outside the cell. the ones that were synthesized were tiny and petered out after a few cycles. (That was in a controlled lab environment with perfect conditions.) Most critically is that when they were modified to simulate mutation, they did not replicate.
I could go on and on and on.
After Leslie Orgel died basically admitting that he had no clue, few people are taking his place. There is million dollar reward for anyone who can propose a plausible theory. No data or proof, just a story. They have to bribe people to perform research in that area because 100 years of reserach have all but slammed the door. (It is only still alive because it is impossible to prove a negative.)
They are so desperate that they are serious;y considering panspermia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 10:27 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 10:06 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 09:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't know what you're talking about.
This Nobel laureate needs none of your woo to work on the origins of life, and YOU have no way to refute his chemistry and biochemistry.
No matter if we have all the answers now or not, slapping on the explanation "oh the gods must have done it" is never justified.




This is laughable. He does a bunch of hand waving and high level description to describe the RNA first world. I used to believe in abiogenesis, but I no longer do. The research in the last 30 years have effectively ruled it out as implausible. I could write an encyclopedia on the issues with abiogensis.
Each bullet could be a book.
nucleic acids are unstable outside of a cell

In the current enviironment which is nothing like the environment 3.5 billion years ago.

Quote:homochirality

Amino acids and sugars are synthesized by the machinery of the cell in the environment of the cell; there is no reason to expect mixed chirality.

Quote:proteins are needed for DNA but DNA is needed to make proteins

RNA-first world.

Quote:how did membranes form

The fundamental building blocks of all cell membranes are phospholipids, which are amphipathic molecules, consisting of two hydrophobic fatty acid chains linked to a phosphate-containing hydrophilic head group

Quote:how did metabolism form

What does that mean?

Quote:How did replication, metabolism all form in a membrane- The ultimate example of irreducible complexity.

You claim irreducible complexity - now prove it.

Quote:The by-products of necessary reactions prevent other necessary reactions

Argument from ignorance and incredulity. Try harder.

Quote:Despite decades of research, RNA has not been demonstrated to replicate itself.
Under controlled lab conditions and pure concentrated chemicals, it peeters out and doesn't finish.

Except that is not true. Just Google it.

Quote:He starts with RNA, but the real trick is getting to RNA or DNA from simple chemistry. No naturally occurring replicator molecule has ever been found outside the cell. the ones that were synthesized were tiny and petered out after a few cycles. (That was in a controlled lab environment with perfect conditions.) Most critically is that when they were modified to simulate mutation, they did not replicate.
I could go on and on and on.
After Leslie Orgel died basically admitting that he had no clue, few people are taking his place. There is million dollar reward for anyone who can propose a plausible theory. No data or proof, just a story. They have to bribe people to perform research in that area because 100 years of reserach have all but slammed the door. (It is only still alive because it is impossible to prove a negative.)
They are so desperate that they are serious;y considering panspermia.

Yet more argument from ignorance and incredulity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
05-07-2016, 10:30 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
At work.

So... am I correct in saying that your stance is,

"We don't know, therefore a deity is/must/might/should be involved." U196533?

Also, might I inquire as to your thoughts on the two subjects?

Do you note the difference ( No time to find correct term ) between 'Evolution' and 'Abiogenesis'?

Just asking to clarify things for my self, is all. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 11:02 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 11:10 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 10:06 AM)u196533 Wrote:  This is laughable. He does a bunch of hand waving and high level description to describe the RNA first world. I used to believe in abiogenesis, but I no longer do. The research in the last 30 years have effectively ruled it out as implausible. I could write an encyclopedia on the issues with abiogensis.

Except you can't and you didn't. You're incompetent.
I'll take a Nobel laureate over the likes of you any day.
You're clearly here to push the BS of creationism.

"nucleic acids are unstable outside of a cell"
Hahahaha. They exist INSIDE of cells, and replicate, and promote protein synthesis there. We don't need them to be "stable outside of cells". That is the MOST idiotic statement.
He explained how membranes formed, 9or could have formed).

You have not made ANY specific refutations of his specific chemistry.


ALL your bullshit boils down to "we don't know, therefore GAWD".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
05-07-2016, 11:03 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 09:46 AM)u196533 Wrote:  The gibbs equation was used as an example. It is a basic fact that chemical reaction drive to lower energy and increase entropy.

"If energy is available then reactions take place." That simply is not true. Chemical reactions that increase energy and lower entropy will not occur spontaneously.

As Chas already said, you are not even wrong. You clearly are just unable to understand anything that doesn't support your preconceptions.

Quote:If you place an amoeba into a sterile environment, that is the entire system. It will decompose into a puddle. There is no explanation for its ability to organize itself in the first place.

Perhaps because you can't directly compare what happens in a sterile environment to what happens in the real world. Your inability to comprehend is not an argument for a supernatural explanation.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 11:30 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 09:52 AM)tomilay Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 08:21 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Not true. Abiogenesis relies on chemical system acquiring self preservation. Chemical will always lower energy and increase entropy when left to themselves. Living things take on energy to increase entropy. A violation of chemistry is supernatural.

You are saying that a violation of the known principles of science is supernatural. Place yourself back in the days of Geocentric model, back near the middle ages. If someone argued for a supernatural element because the geocentric model couldn't explain a phenomenon, would you disagree? Why?

Apples and Oranges - The geocentric model was a belief without data. It was not a basic law of science.
If something violates the Laws of Physics, that is the definition of supernatural. If the statue of liberty started singing and dancing (and it was determined not to be an illusion) people would start looking toward the supernatural. If you could show me inanimate objects lowering entropy and increasing energy spontaneously, then maybe it aint supernatural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 11:35 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 11:30 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Apples and Oranges - The geocentric model was a belief without data. It was not a basic law of science.
If something violates the Laws of Physics, that is the definition of supernatural. If the statue of liberty started singing and dancing (and it was determined not to be an illusion) people would start looking toward the supernatural. If you could show me inanimate objects lowering entropy and increasing energy spontaneously, then maybe it aint supernatural.

I don't think you understand what spontaneously means. You have yet to show an example of anything increasing energy without that energy being added from a source external to the system in question. Nothing at all about the chemical processes involved in living organisms violates any laws of physics.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 11:35 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 11:02 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 10:06 AM)u196533 Wrote:  This is laughable. He does a bunch of hand waving and high level description to describe the RNA first world. I used to believe in abiogenesis, but I no longer do. The research in the last 30 years have effectively ruled it out as implausible. I could write an encyclopedia on the issues with abiogensis.

Except you can't and you didn't. You're incompetent.
I'll take a Nobel laureate over the likes of you any day.
You're clearly here to push the BS of creationism.

"nucleic acids are unstable outside of a cell"
Hahahaha. They exist INSIDE of cells, and replicate, and promote protein synthesis there. We don't need them to be "stable outside of cells". That is the MOST idiotic statement.
He explained how membranes formed, 9or could have formed).

You have not made ANY specific refutations of his specific chemistry.


ALL your bullshit boils down to "we don't know, therefore GAWD".

That movie is old. Please look into the latest research on abiogenesis. If yiou still think it is plausible, fine. Then at least you will be able to defend your beliefs in your own words without having to point to an old outdated video. When I look into it, it is implausible. Then when you layer on the chemistry/thermodynamic forces AGIANST life forming, it is a compelling argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: