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, 01:03 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
I'm still trying to parse "beyond the remit of science". Dafuq's that even mean.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
05-07-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:58 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 12:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Sure order forms spontaneously. Then it falls apart without an external force adding energy and forcing it to remain in a state of dis-equilibrium.

You seem to be claiming that Earth doesn't have such an external force, but it does: the Sun, for example. The Second Law cannot be applied to Earth. We're not a closed system.

I have already stated and provided examples of how just adding energy will not reduce entropy. Those chemical reactions are not spontaneous. the 2nd Law applies to ALL systems. Please look back a few pages in this thread as that has already been resolved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
At work.

So am guessing u196533? You are replacing 'We don't know' with 'A diety did it'.

Thumbsup

Great! Now... how do you think said diety actually did do it?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 01:04 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 01:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:57 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 12:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't care if it's "old". You refuted nothing specific about the chemistry, never said what's "outdated" about it, and in fact made a fundamental error about DNA/RNA "outside of cells". You asked about membranes. Yet it explains their formation. No one cares if you think it's implausible. You did not present any specifics with respect to the chemistry, as you can't.

We know from Chaos Theory, that "order" forms spontaneously in this universe, and you have nothing to refute it, except your lame "cuz thermodynamics", (and of course "therefore gawd").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

You can't seriously be still spouting that "irreducible complexity" bullshit.


Too bad for you, but it has. You just didn't know it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...173205.htm


Nope. See above.


References to everything required.


Apaprently you think you can ... however when this crap is examined carefully you have nothing ... at all.


All it takes is one, and I gave you one.


No one is bribing Szostack.
That was an RNA enzyme. Not a complete RNA strand. It is not my responsibility to prove abiogensis. I have been following the research for almost 20 years and found nothing in the last 70 years that strongly support it. There is a mountain of evidence so suggest it cannot happen naturally.

few people are taking his place. I'll bet Szostack is after the $1M prize.

No one asked you to prove it, you fake. No one cares what a biased religionist has followed for 20 years. You have no chemistry, and you have no videos. There is not one step of the video I presented you can refute, specifically, with specific chemistry. You're a FRAUD. Still pushing the old debunked "irreducible complexity" crap. There is no evidence you can present which shows it ''can't happen". You got the results of Chaos Theory wrong. You said THE most stupid thing imaginable about DNA being unstable "outside a cell" when it NEVER operates that way, and a freshman in High School knows that. You wish it couldn't happen as you *need* to push this garbage to push your "gawd". No one cares what prize he may or may not be after. He's a Harvard Professor, (which you are clearly not), and he's a Nobel laureate, when you will never be.

LMAO.

You don't even have the background to get what you were reading in the article :

"In the modern world, DNA carries the genetic sequence for advanced organisms, while RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles such as building proteins. But one prominent theory about the origins of life, called the RNA World model, postulates that because RNA can function as both a gene and an enzyme, RNA might have come before DNA and protein and acted as the ancestral molecule of life. However, the process of copying a genetic molecule, which is considered a basic qualification for life, appears to be exceedingly complex, involving many proteins and other cellular components.

For years, researchers have wondered whether there might be some simpler way to copy RNA, brought about by the RNA itself. Some tentative steps along this road had previously been taken by the Joyce lab and others, but no one could demonstrate that RNA replication could be self-propagating, that is, result in new copies of RNA that also could copy themselves."

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
05-07-2016, 01:10 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 01:24 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 01:00 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 12:13 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  1) shaking/squeezing the bottle = adding energy (?)
2) liquid entropy > ice/crystal entropy (?)
3) (added) energy is availiable, reaction occurs, which decreases entropy (?)




There was a lot of energy/outside influence to set up the experiment before that the camera started rolling. Something that is supercooled is in a state of disequilibrium. It would eventually reach equilibrium and freeze by itself. Squeezing the bottle sped up the reaction.

What the video showed was just a change in state of matter. We started with water and ended up with water, no chemical reaction at all. The video was not about chemistry but about physics. You didnt notice the difference? Consider Tongue

In your original post you were referring to heating up a gas as it expands as a "reaction" too. It wasnt and isnt. I just wanted to have this confirmed from you. You seem to confuse chemical reactions with physical changes of state of matter.

Quote:There was a lot of energy/outside influence to set up the experiment before that the camera started rolling
Are you suggesting the video was faked? It wasnt. What was demonstrated is a well understood physical effect.

Quote:It would eventually reach equilibrium and freeze by itself.
Are you sure? What if we slowly heat up the supercooled water?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 01:13 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 01:03 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I'm still trying to parse "beyond the remit of science". Dafuq's that even mean.

It's bullshit from the "Answers in Genesis" / creationist fools that sounds all "smart and sciencey" to try to make people think they know what they are talking about.

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
05-07-2016, 01:41 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 11:38 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 11:35 AM)unfogged Wrote:  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.

The energy comes from an external source of course. The source of the energy is irrelevant. Chemical reactions in which energy is absorbed and entropy is lowered will not happen just by putting the chemicals together. The reactions will not take place without an outside force driving them to do so.

The 'driving force' is the energy that comes from an external source. It is just chemistry.

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, 01:43 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 11:44 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 09:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  A fine example of "not even wrong". Facepalm


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.

It is you who does not understand the chemistry. Having energy available does not mean a reaction will occur. If a reaction increases entropy it will. (Heat a gas and see it expand.) But it won't if the entropy is decreased.
Imagine a bomb explosion being reversed. It would never happen spontaneously.

Your statement is ridiculous. You really don't understand chemistry or thermodynamics. Facepalm

The energy absorbed by the atoms and molecules is the increase in entropy.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-07-2016, 01:46 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 11:54 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 11:50 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

*Raises hand again*

Am pretty sure I read a rescent article ( Yeah, New Scientist... but still. Blush ) and that some one previously mentioned about research regarding 'Lippid fats'?

Consider

Please, correct if in error.

I'd be willing to read them. There is bound to be some research that MIGHT explain one small step in a process that requires thousands of steps. However, if there was any serious breakthrough really worth digging into, it be on the news.
The fact that people are getting serious about Panspermia speaks volumes.

They are? Who are the members of "they"?

Panspermia explains precisely nothing. Life still had to start somewhere.

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, 01:49 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:02 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 10:30 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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

I understand the difference between abiogensis and evolution.
It is not that we don't know. It is that life violates the drives of chemistry.

Your understanding of chemistry is about nil.

Quote:If you were to take all of the atoms of any life form, put them in a jar and shake them up for eons, the laws of chemistry dictate that you would never see life.

No, they don't. IF you want to try to support your silly claim, please proceed.

Quote:The atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy in their constituents.

You are still ignorant, I see. There is energy coming from outside that system. Facepalm

The "jar" is the entire Earth and the external energy sources include the sun and Earth's internal heat.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: