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, 09:33 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 03:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 03:19 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Just adding energy will not cause a reaction to occur if it also lowers the entropy.

It will with enzymes. You're an ignorant fool, and have no clue about how Biochemistry works.

You don't understand catalysts/enzymes. Imagine a match. The phosphorus, sulfur and potassium chlorate combine with oxygen and in the process heat/energy is released. It is a spontaneous reaction but does not occur until you strike the match. The act of striking it provides the activation energy to start the chemical reaction. An enzyme just lowers the activation energy to facilitate the reaction. However, if the chemicals would increase energy and lower entropy, the reaction will not occur spontaneously. An enzyme would not change that.

You can't refute my argument and clearly don't have a clue, so you resort to ad hominum attacks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2016, 10:02 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Life is too short.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
05-07-2016, 10:14 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2016 10:17 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 09:33 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 03:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It will with enzymes. You're an ignorant fool, and have no clue about how Biochemistry works.

You don't understand catalysts/enzymes. Imagine a match. The phosphorus, sulfur and potassium chlorate combine with oxygen and in the process heat/energy is released. It is a spontaneous reaction but does not occur until you strike the match. The act of striking it provides the activation energy to start the chemical reaction. An enzyme just lowers the activation energy to facilitate the reaction. However, if the chemicals would increase energy and lower entropy, the reaction will not occur spontaneously. An enzyme would not change that.

You can't refute my argument and clearly don't have a clue, so you resort to ad hominum attacks.

And you have no clue what ATP is, and the fact it RELEASES energy, (the amounts for which are listed on the prior page). You have no "argument". You simply don't know anything about Biochemistry.

Still waiting for your videos.
Still waiting for you to refute the chemistry of Szostack.
Still waiting to hear why it matters that DNA is unstable outside of cells. Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Still waiting to hear why atoms in a jar being shaken, is a true anaology .... LMAO.

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
06-07-2016, 06:31 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 03:19 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 01:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

That is a garbled and meaningless statement. Entropy can be lowered locally - it happens all the time.

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
06-07-2016, 06:33 AM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2016 08:33 AM by Chas.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-07-2016 03:24 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your understanding of chemistry is about nil.


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


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.

Please spend 5 minutes research the Gibbs free energy equation. That should give you the background to understand my argument. Your knowledge of chemistry is lacking.

Your argument is based on your misunderstanding of entropy and your mythical "driving force of 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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-07-2016, 07:28 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.

Self-sustaining redox reactions in an open system is not a "violation" of chemistry.

Abiogenesis is a collection of hypotheses that demonstrate, to varying degrees, the ways in which chemistry can be self-sustaining and self-replicating, and how the first cells could have formed.

You not understanding chemistry does not mean abiogenesis violates natural chemical processes. Think about the arrogance you're displaying. Because you are literally saying that the scientists (who study chemistry and biology and geochemistry and geology and paleontology) who've spent their careers studying abiogenesis have somehow missed the need for supernature to be involved because YOU somehow understand all of these fields than those of us who've studied it for a career.

Arrogance from ignorance. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-07-2016, 07:37 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-07-2016 03:19 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Just adding energy will not cause a reaction to occur if it also lowers the entropy.

That is a garbled and meaningless statement. Entropy can be lowered locally - it happens all the time.

Yes a reaction will occur to lower entropy if it also lowers energy. That is a how a crystal forms. It won't occur spontaneously if it increases energy and lowers entropy. Imagine a bomb working in reverse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2016, 07:39 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 07:37 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is a garbled and meaningless statement. Entropy can be lowered locally - it happens all the time.

Yes a reaction will occur to lower entropy if it also lowers energy. That is a how a crystal forms. It won't occur spontaneously if it increases energy and lowers entropy. Imagine a bomb working in reverse.

And life is redox chemistry. Are you saying that redox reactions violate natural chemical processes? Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 07:28 AM)TheBeardedDude 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.

Self-sustaining redox reactions in an open system is not a "violation" of chemistry.

Abiogenesis is a collection of hypotheses that demonstrate, to varying degrees, the ways in which chemistry can be self-sustaining and self-replicating, and how the first cells could have formed.

You not understanding chemistry does not mean abiogenesis violates natural chemical processes. Think about the arrogance you're displaying. Because you are literally saying that the scientists (who study chemistry and biology and geochemistry and geology and paleontology) who've spent their careers studying abiogenesis have somehow missed the need for supernature to be involved because YOU somehow understand all of these fields than those of us who've studied it for a career.

Arrogance from ignorance. Drinking Beverage

I was not suggesting that abiogenesis started in a jar. I was pointing put that the atoms would be in a higher state of entropy and lower state of energy as constituent atoms.

At some point in the history of life on earth, a self-ordering, autocatalytic chemical system had to develop characteristics to which selfishness could be attributed. The story starts with a molecule that replicates and evolves into RNA/DNA. It miraculously obtains a method to metabolize food and somewhere along that path life begins.
The problem is that the driving energy and/or the chemicals needed for reaction would have had to exhaust themselves at some point in a process that took millions of years. I can imagine some goldilocks environment where all the necessary chemicals and energy were force fed for some period of time, but at some point the chemicals and energy would have been cut off. At that point those pre-biotic replicator molecules should have simply ceased to exist. Instead those autocatalytic chemicals must have had to manipulate the environment in order to extract energy in an act of self-preservation. Chemistry and thermodynamics dictate that a chemical system won’t spontaneously extract energy from the environment in order to lower it’s entropy.

While the will to live/self-preservation can be rationalized in a sentient being, it can’t be naturally explained in a simple organism or the replicator molecules. Dawkins describes a selfish, replicator molecule emerging. However, selfishness and replication are 2 independent attributes. He glosses over the selfish aspect and takes it for granted. (I am convinced he did so due to his a priori commitment to atheism.) The fact that Dawkins, a great story teller, did not even attempt to create a semi-plausible story to explain that speaks volumes.
Selfishness cannot simply be assumed. A chemical system developing the impetus not merely to replicate, but to persist against death cannot be explained. No other inorganic self-ordering, autocatalytic, structures does that. A candle flame, a hurricane, or a Bénard cell does not seek resources when the material conditions needed to continue run out; they cease.
Living things do so until all options are exhausted. Some of the simplest organisms engage in elaborate behaviors to forestall death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2016, 08:28 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 07:46 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 07:28 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Self-sustaining redox reactions in an open system is not a "violation" of chemistry.

Abiogenesis is a collection of hypotheses that demonstrate, to varying degrees, the ways in which chemistry can be self-sustaining and self-replicating, and how the first cells could have formed.

You not understanding chemistry does not mean abiogenesis violates natural chemical processes. Think about the arrogance you're displaying. Because you are literally saying that the scientists (who study chemistry and biology and geochemistry and geology and paleontology) who've spent their careers studying abiogenesis have somehow missed the need for supernature to be involved because YOU somehow understand all of these fields than those of us who've studied it for a career.

Arrogance from ignorance. Drinking Beverage

I was not suggesting that abiogenesis started in a jar. I was pointing put that the atoms would be in a higher state of entropy and lower state of energy as constituent atoms.

At some point in the history of life on earth, a self-ordering, autocatalytic chemical system had to develop characteristics to which selfishness could be attributed. The story starts with a molecule that replicates and evolves into RNA/DNA. It miraculously obtains a method to metabolize food and somewhere along that path life begins.
The problem is that the driving energy and/or the chemicals needed for reaction would have had to exhaust themselves at some point in a process that took millions of years. I can imagine some goldilocks environment where all the necessary chemicals and energy were force fed for some period of time, but at some point the chemicals and energy would have been cut off. At that point those pre-biotic replicator molecules should have simply ceased to exist. Instead those autocatalytic chemicals must have had to manipulate the environment in order to extract energy in an act of self-preservation. Chemistry and thermodynamics dictate that a chemical system won’t spontaneously extract energy from the environment in order to lower it’s entropy.

While the will to live/self-preservation can be rationalized in a sentient being, it can’t be naturally explained in a simple organism or the replicator molecules. Dawkins describes a selfish, replicator molecule emerging. However, selfishness and replication are 2 independent attributes. He glosses over the selfish aspect and takes it for granted. (I am convinced he did so due to his a priori commitment to atheism.) The fact that Dawkins, a great story teller, did not even attempt to create a semi-plausible story to explain that speaks volumes.
Selfishness cannot simply be assumed. A chemical system developing the impetus not merely to replicate, but to persist against death cannot be explained. No other inorganic self-ordering, autocatalytic, structures does that. A candle flame, a hurricane, or a Bénard cell does not seek resources when the material conditions needed to continue run out; they cease.
Living things do so until all options are exhausted. Some of the simplest organisms engage in elaborate behaviors to forestall death.

"I was not suggesting that abiogenesis started in a jar."

No, you were suggesting something equally as stupid. You were suggesting that life requires supernature in order to begin because you fail to understand chemistry and biology.

"At some point in the history of life on earth, a self-ordering, autocatalytic chemical system had to develop characteristics to which selfishness could be attributed. "

Evolution. It's called "evolution." That's the theory we use to describe how life changes over time. Once the first living organism is on Earth, it evolves.

"The story starts with a molecule that replicates and evolves into RNA/DNA."

No, you're straw man starts with that.

Life starts with redox chemistry.

"It miraculously obtains a method to metabolize food and somewhere along that path life begins. "

Now your ignorance is showing. You do realize that not all living things generate energy the same way, right? Photoautotrophs and chemoautotrophs do just fine without needing to find and metabolize "food."

"The problem is that the driving energy and/or the chemicals needed for reaction would have had to exhaust themselves at some point in a process that took millions of years."

That isn't even close to being true. Do you know how large Earth is and how widely available the reactants necessary for redox reactions are? Your statement would mean that life can never survive on Earth for more than "millions of years" and yet evidence for life goes back almost 3 billion years. Laugh out load

"I can imagine some goldilocks environment where all the necessary chemicals and energy were force fed for some period of time, but at some point the chemicals and energy would have been cut off. "

Your imagination runs wild with presuppositionalist scenarios.

"At that point those pre-biotic replicator molecules should have simply ceased to exist. Instead those autocatalytic chemicals must have had to manipulate the environment in order to extract energy in an act of self-preservation. "

Simple organisms (like that of bacteria or a virus or whatever the first living thing was) don't "act" out of "self-preservation." You are assigning consciousness to living things that do not possess it.

But once again, EVOLUTION is the process by which living things change over time and adapt to their environment. YOU assert that evolution adapts the environment to the living organisms, which isn't what evolution does.

Living things do modify the environment in which they live, including food webs whereby organisms use one another to subsist and survive. But this is a byproduct of life, not a conscious effort on its part (very few organisms intentionally manipulate the environment in which they live).

Chemistry and thermodynamics dictate that a chemical system won’t spontaneously extract energy from the environment in order to lower it’s entropy."

Once again, the redox chemistry that formed the basis of life is no different than any other redox reaction. Are you now suggesting that chemists and biologists believe that redox reactions "spontaneously extract energy from the environment" in order to "lower entropy?"

Yet again, you arrogantly assert that chemists and biologists don't know basic redox chemistry, when the opposite is more obviously true.

"While the will to live/self-preservation can be rationalized in a sentient being, it can’t be naturally explained in a simple organism or the replicator molecules. Dawkins describes a selfish, replicator molecule emerging. However, selfishness and replication are 2 independent attributes. He glosses over the selfish aspect and takes it for granted. (I am convinced he did so due to his a priori commitment to atheism.) The fact that Dawkins, a great story teller, did not even attempt to create a semi-plausible story to explain that speaks volumes.
Selfishness cannot simply be assumed. A chemical system developing the impetus not merely to replicate, but to persist against death cannot be explained. No other inorganic self-ordering, autocatalytic, structures does that. A candle flame, a hurricane, or a Bénard cell does not seek resources when the material conditions needed to continue run out; they cease."


Now you are straw manning Dawkins. Hint: when Dawkins uses the word "selfish" he is being very specific about what he means and why.

"In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally) to imply that they are driven by any motives or will, but merely that their effects can be metaphorically and pedagogically described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that are passed on are the ones whose evolutionary consequences serve their own implicit interest (to continue the anthropomorphism) in being replicated, not necessarily those of the organism. In later work, Dawkins brings evolutionary "selfishness" down to creation of a widely proliferated extended phenotype.[8]" from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfis...h.22_genes

"Living things do so until all options are exhausted. Some of the simplest organisms engage in elaborate behaviors to forestall death."

You continue to assign conscious qualities to non-sentient living things.





Which scenario do you think more likely:
1) you understand and grasp the science of evolution and abiogenesis better than the scientists who study and research it (including the likes of Dawkins)
2) you think you understand it better but your frail grasp on it is based on only a very basic understanding of the science from which you extrapolate some sort of expertise.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: