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, 02:01 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 11:51 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Please look closely at Kruas' book. There is an energy density field. He even uses the words "well almost nothing" toward the end of the book to keep from being intellectually dishonest.

Yes, he does say "almost nothing" in one of the later chapters. You need to keep reading though. He talks about getting everything from energy in space, then he goes on to talk about how once you have space you get energy and then goes on to how you get space.

Quote:As I have defined it thus far, the relevant "nothing" from which our observed "something" arises is "empty space." However, once we allow for the merging of quantum mechanics and general relativity, we can extend this argument to the case where space itself is forced into existence.

Quote:My argument related to life is not an argument of incredulity. It is an argument of impossibility. Life violates the laws of chemical thermodynamics.

No, it really doesn't. Your incorrect application of the second law doesn't do what you think it does. Your argument that chemicals have to be made to interact is on par with the argument that gravity is the result of angels holding everything down. You are just wrong.

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
05-07-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 12:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 12:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  He presented high level theories, not hard chemistry with experiments/ results. I could easily provide other high level videos that take the opposite view but won't waste your time.
He doesn't even attempt to address the really hard question related to RNA forming from a replicator molecule because they don't even have a wild ass guesstimate.
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.

Feel free to present your "claimed" higher level videos.
You have none.
He did present experiments results. You have no clue what you're on about. Your bullshit about "order falls apart" is total crap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
You have NO CLUE what you're pretending to know how to talk about. A total fraud. A fake.

You're flat out WRONG about RNA.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...173205.htm

A quote from your link:
Lincoln synthesized in the laboratory a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that would be challenged to do the job, and carried out a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA.

Do you read things before posting them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 02:24 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
This http://www.icr.org/article/thermodynamic...fe-part-i/
old BS from ICR about life violating the second Law is debunked.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-...y-of-life/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...7794901880

https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/1...s-debunked
" "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body. [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the second law is phrased in another equivalent way, The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always ) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the second law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the second law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.skeptictank.org/files/icr/hs/icr0dud.htm

"When highly ordered living organisms increase in complexity when growing, they create more entropy in the environment than the entropy decreasing of the organisms as they are growing"

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, 02:25 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:01 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 11:51 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Please look closely at Kruas' book. There is an energy density field. He even uses the words "well almost nothing" toward the end of the book to keep from being intellectually dishonest.

Yes, he does say "almost nothing" in one of the later chapters. You need to keep reading though. He talks about getting everything from energy in space, then he goes on to talk about how once you have space you get energy and then goes on to how you get space.

Quote:As I have defined it thus far, the relevant "nothing" from which our observed "something" arises is "empty space." However, once we allow for the merging of quantum mechanics and general relativity, we can extend this argument to the case where space itself is forced into existence.

Quote:My argument related to life is not an argument of incredulity. It is an argument of impossibility. Life violates the laws of chemical thermodynamics.

No, it really doesn't. Your incorrect application of the second law doesn't do what you think it does. Your argument that chemicals have to be made to interact is on par with the argument that gravity is the result of angels holding everything down. You are just wrong.

"He talks about getting everything from energy in space"
Exactly. Where did the energy in space come from?

This in not a direct application of the 2nd Law. This is an application of the basic drives of chemistry. Lower energy and increase entropy. All reactions drive toward those 2 goals, and most are a compromise between the 2 drives.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 02:28 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  This http://www.icr.org/article/thermodynamic...fe-part-i/
old BS from ICR about life violating the second Law is debunked.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-...y-of-life/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...7794901880

https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/1...s-debunked
" "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body. [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the second law is phrased in another equivalent way, The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always ) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the second law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the second law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.skeptictank.org/files/icr/hs/icr0dud.htm

"When highly ordered living organisms increase in complexity when growing, they create more entropy in the environment than the entropy decreasing of the organisms as they are growing"

This is not a direct application of the 2nd Law. Living things can get energy fro the environment in order to lower their entropy. As long as the entropy of the larger system is increased that is not a violation of the 2nd Law.
This is a violation of the basic drives of chemistry. Lower Energy and increase entropy. Chemical reactions will not proceed spontaneously if they increase energy and lower entropy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 02:30 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 01:04 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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

I am not saying "we don't know". I am saying that it violates the laws of Physics, therefore could not have happened naturally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 02:32 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 01:04 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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

I am not saying "we don't know". I am saying that it violates the laws of Physics, therefore could not have happened naturally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 02:36 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 01:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 12:57 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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."
I understand the RNA first proposal. Tere are also others who think metabolism first. He just described the basic gist of their theories. he needs about 10 more levels of detail before you tell me anything I didn't know 10 years ago.

"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." - This is the bottom line. Do you even read the shit you post?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 02:42 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 01:10 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 01:00 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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?

You are absolutely correct. My examples were overly simplified, and therefore were not the best examples of chemical reactions. I was trying to explain the basic drives of chemistry and how the drive toward energy and entropy tend to conflict .
The fact that my examples were not ideal does not detract from the undeniable fact that all things tend toward lower energy and increased entropy. Life bucks that inexplicably.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 02:43 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:28 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 02:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  This http://www.icr.org/article/thermodynamic...fe-part-i/
old BS from ICR about life violating the second Law is debunked.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-...y-of-life/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...7794901880

https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/1...s-debunked
" "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body. [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the second law is phrased in another equivalent way, The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always ) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the second law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the second law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.skeptictank.org/files/icr/hs/icr0dud.htm

"When highly ordered living organisms increase in complexity when growing, they create more entropy in the environment than the entropy decreasing of the organisms as they are growing"

This is not a direct application of the 2nd Law. Living things can get energy fro the environment in order to lower their entropy. As long as the entropy of the larger system is increased that is not a violation of the 2nd Law.
This is a violation of the basic drives of chemistry. Lower Energy and increase entropy. Chemical reactions will not proceed spontaneously if they increase energy and lower entropy.

They will with enzymes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme
That's what enzymes are, and what they do.
As I said, you are a total fraud. You have no clue what you're 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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: