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, 02:45 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:42 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 01:10 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  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.

Are you suggesting the video was faked? It wasnt. What was demonstrated is a well understood physical effect.

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.

Nope. Not "inexplicably". Not at all. You just don't know anything about how it works.

"Enzymes /ˈɛnzaɪmz/ are macromolecular biological catalysts. Enzymes accelerate, or catalyze, chemical reactions. The molecules at the beginning of the process are called substrates and the enzyme converts these into different molecules, called products. Almost all metabolic processes in the cell need enzymes in order to occur at rates fast enough to sustain life.[1]:8.1 The set of enzymes made in a cell determines which metabolic pathways occur in that cell. The study of enzymes is called enzymology.

Enzymes are known to catalyze more than 5,000 biochemical reaction types.[2] Most enzymes are proteins, although a few are catalytic RNA molecules. Enzymes' specificity comes from their unique three-dimensional structures.

Like all catalysts, enzymes increase the rate of a reaction by lowering its activation energy. Some enzymes can make their conversion of substrate to product occur many millions of times faster. An extreme example is orotidine 5'-phosphate decarboxylase, which allows a reaction that would otherwise take millions of years to occur in milliseconds.[3][4] Chemically, enzymes are like any catalyst and are not consumed in chemical reactions, nor do they alter the equilibrium of a reaction. Enzymes differ from most other catalysts by being much more specific. Enzyme activity can be affected by other molecules: inhibitors are molecules that decrease enzyme activity, and activators are molecules that increase activity. Many drugs and poisons are enzyme inhibitors. An enzyme's activity decreases markedly outside its optimal temperature and pH.

Some enzymes are used commercially, for example, in the synthesis of antibiotics. Some household products use enzymes to speed up chemical reactions: enzymes in biological washing powders break down protein, starch or fat stains on clothes, and enzymes in meat tenderizer break down proteins into smaller molecules, making the meat easier to chew."

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, 02:46 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Am home! Heart

(05-07-2016 02:30 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I am not saying "we don't know". I am saying that it violates the laws of Physics, therefore could not have happened naturally.

Okay... you are saying that Abiogenesis is violating the second law of thermo-dynamics.

Yes

Now... from there, you're saying that some diety/thing must have instigated Abiogenesis.

Yes?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 02:50 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 02:58 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:36 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

Waiting for the videos you claimed you had.
Waiting for you to debunk IN DETAIL the chemistry from the video I posted, and why the membranes and processes he proposes could not have happened.
Waiting for you to explain why DNA "outside' a cell being "unstable" matters.

Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03...e-entropy/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_law_...modynamics
"Misapplication by creationists
The false analogy of entropy as disorder is used in a number of fields outside of science with varying success. Creationists have picked up on disorder terminology and attempted to apply the second law of thermodynamics as a refutation of evolution. The analogy would state that more complex life-forms could never evolve from simpler ones.
It seems obvious that this false analogy of a false analogy is incorrect. First, the Earth is not an isolated system - it receives a copious amount of incoming energy from the Sun. Second, evolution does not imply that life is becoming increasingly complex; it only says that natural selection allows genes to be passed on and different characteristics hence preserved.
It also is a corruption to believe life is always "more ordered" than inanimate objects. In fact, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in strict energetic sense. The energy of the sun is converted into chemical potential energy, which is converted to mechanical work or heat (the Earth is not an isolated system.) In each case, the energy transfer is inefficient, and some energy is dissipated as heat to the environment, leading to a dispersion of energy. In the same way, "ordered" snowflakes can form when the weather becomes cold but the entropy of the universe still increases.
Victor J. Stenger, a theoretical physicist, refuted this creationist claim "However, a transmitter and a receiver are two interacting systems. They are not individually isolated. So, the entropy lost by one system can be gained by the other. Or, equivalently, the information lost by one can be gained by the other. So a physical system, such as a biological organism or Earth itself, which gets energy from the sun, can become more ordered by purely natural processes."[4]. A quote in reference to chemistry education illustrates this point:
One aspect of biological systems that intrigues students is the possibility of discovering violations of the well-known laws of thermodynamics and physical chemistry. It is easy to refute most of the examples suggested. A germinating seed or an embryo developing in a fertilized chicken egg are often naively cited as examples of isolated systems in which an increase in order, or decrease in entropy occurs spontaneously. It is evident, however, that respiration, assuming O2 is present, produces an increase in entropy in the form of heat, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy that arises when the elements present in the seed or in the yolk of the egg are organized into tissues of the plant or animal. Indeed, neither germination nor embryonic development will occur in the absence of oxygen in the system in question.[5]
In reference to evolution, PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen."
Furthermore, Carl Sagan points out that if the second law of thermodynamics were applied to a god, then god would necessarily have to die.[6]
(Brief quiz about thermodynamics: How many generally recognized laws of thermodynamics are there? We know about the second law: Give the numbers for the other laws.[7])
Let us suppose that there actually were some process in nature which violated the second law of thermodynamics. Is that any reason to suppose that intelligent designers are responsible? The only intelligent designers that we have familiarity with, humans and other more-or-less intelligent animals, are as much subject to the second law of thermodynamics as are non-intelligent agents. Indeed, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered as limitations on what the clever engineers of the 19th century were able to design. Intelligent designers are not able to construct perpetual motion machines. Intelligent designers don't b

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, 03:08 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 02:42 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

Nope. Not "inexplicably". Not at all. You just don't know anything about how it works.

"Enzymes /ˈɛnzaɪmz/ are macromolecular biological catalysts. Enzymes accelerate, or catalyze, chemical reactions. The molecules at the beginning of the process are called substrates and the enzyme converts these into different molecules, called products. Almost all metabolic processes in the cell need enzymes in order to occur at rates fast enough to sustain life.[1]:8.1 The set of enzymes made in a cell determines which metabolic pathways occur in that cell. The study of enzymes is called enzymology.

Enzymes are known to catalyze more than 5,000 biochemical reaction types.[2] Most enzymes are proteins, although a few are catalytic RNA molecules. Enzymes' specificity comes from their unique three-dimensional structures.

Like all catalysts, enzymes increase the rate of a reaction by lowering its activation energy. Some enzymes can make their conversion of substrate to product occur many millions of times faster. An extreme example is orotidine 5'-phosphate decarboxylase, which allows a reaction that would otherwise take millions of years to occur in milliseconds.[3][4] Chemically, enzymes are like any catalyst and are not consumed in chemical reactions, nor do they alter the equilibrium of a reaction. Enzymes differ from most other catalysts by being much more specific. Enzyme activity can be affected by other molecules: inhibitors are molecules that decrease enzyme activity, and activators are molecules that increase activity. Many drugs and poisons are enzyme inhibitors. An enzyme's activity decreases markedly outside its optimal temperature and pH.

Some enzymes are used commercially, for example, in the synthesis of antibiotics. Some household products use enzymes to speed up chemical reactions: enzymes in biological washing powders break down protein, starch or fat stains on clothes, and enzymes in meat tenderizer break down proteins into smaller molecules, making the meat easier to chew."

You have correctly described how enzymes work. I don't see the direct relevance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 02:36 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

Waiting for the videos you claimed you had.
Waiting for you to debunk IN DETAIL the chemistry from the video I posted, and why the membranes and processes he proposes could not have happened.
Waiting for you to explain why DNA "outside' a cell being "unstable" matters.

Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03...e-entropy/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_law_...modynamics
"Misapplication by creationists
The false analogy of entropy as disorder is used in a number of fields outside of science with varying success. Creationists have picked up on disorder terminology and attempted to apply the second law of thermodynamics as a refutation of evolution. The analogy would state that more complex life-forms could never evolve from simpler ones.
It seems obvious that this false analogy of a false analogy is incorrect. First, the Earth is not an isolated system - it receives a copious amount of incoming energy from the Sun. Second, evolution does not imply that life is becoming increasingly complex; it only says that natural selection allows genes to be passed on and different characteristics hence preserved.
It also is a corruption to believe life is always "more ordered" than inanimate objects. In fact, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in strict energetic sense. The energy of the sun is converted into chemical potential energy, which is converted to mechanical work or heat (the Earth is not an isolated system.) In each case, the energy transfer is inefficient, and some energy is dissipated as heat to the environment, leading to a dispersion of energy. In the same way, "ordered" snowflakes can form when the weather becomes cold but the entropy of the universe still increases.
Victor J. Stenger, a theoretical physicist, refuted this creationist claim "However, a transmitter and a receiver are two interacting systems. They are not individually isolated. So, the entropy lost by one system can be gained by the other. Or, equivalently, the information lost by one can be gained by the other. So a physical system, such as a biological organism or Earth itself, which gets energy from the sun, can become more ordered by purely natural processes."[4]. A quote in reference to chemistry education illustrates this point:
One aspect of biological systems that intrigues students is the possibility of discovering violations of the well-known laws of thermodynamics and physical chemistry. It is easy to refute most of the examples suggested. A germinating seed or an embryo developing in a fertilized chicken egg are often naively cited as examples of isolated systems in which an increase in order, or decrease in entropy occurs spontaneously. It is evident, however, that respiration, assuming O2 is present, produces an increase in entropy in the form of heat, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy that arises when the elements present in the seed or in the yolk of the egg are organized into tissues of the plant or animal. Indeed, neither germination nor embryonic development will occur in the absence of oxygen in the system in question.[5]
In reference to evolution, PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen."
Furthermore, Carl Sagan points out that if the second law of thermodynamics were applied to a god, then god would necessarily have to die.[6]
(Brief quiz about thermodynamics: How many generally recognized laws of thermodynamics are there? We know about the second law: Give the numbers for the other laws.[7])
Let us suppose that there actually were some process in nature which violated the second law of thermodynamics. Is that any reason to suppose that intelligent designers are responsible? The only intelligent designers that we have familiarity with, humans and other more-or-less intelligent animals, are as much subject to the second law of thermodynamics as are non-intelligent agents. Indeed, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered as limitations on what the clever engineers of the 19th century were able to design. Intelligent designers are not able to construct perpetual motion machines. Intelligent designers don't b

I am not arging the 2nd Law. Please don't bother with that strawman.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:11 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"
I am not arguing against evolution or using the 2nd Law. Strawman.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:14 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:46 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Am home! Heart

(05-07-2016 02:30 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I am not saying "we don't know". I am saying that it violates the laws of Physics, therefore could not have happened naturally.

Okay... you are saying that Abiogenesis is violating the second law of thermo-dynamics.

Yes

Now... from there, you're saying that some diety/thing must have instigated Abiogenesis.

Yes?

It's not this, therefore God?

Gaps?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:14 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:46 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Am home! Heart

(05-07-2016 02:30 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I am not saying "we don't know". I am saying that it violates the laws of Physics, therefore could not have happened naturally.

Okay... you are saying that Abiogenesis is violating the second law of thermo-dynamics.

Yes

Now... from there, you're saying that some diety/thing must have instigated Abiogenesis.

Yes?
I am not stating it violates the 2nd Law. I am saying it violates the basic drives of chemistry to lower energy and increase entropy. Reactions that absorb energy and lower entropy do not happen spontaneously without some outside force making them occur.
Therefore abiogensis could not have occurred naturally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:18 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 02:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 02:28 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.
enzymes are basically catalysts that lower the activation energy.
That does not explain how a chemical reaction in which energy is absorbed and entropy lowered could occur spontaneously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 03:19 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 01:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 11:38 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

Just adding energy will not cause a reaction to occur if it also lowers the entropy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: