The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-07-2016, 02:51 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 01:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Science cannot explain why the chemicals in a living systems behave differently than those in inanimate objects.
What chemicals, why and how do they behave differently?

And again, you are claiming a boundary between living systems and inanimate objects.
Please explain where this boundary is where the "chemicals behave diffrently".
Quote:I don't know what the absolute boundary is, and it is not relevant to this discussion.
In context of your statement above, how can this be irrelevant?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2016, 03:09 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 01:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Science cannot explain why the chemicals in a living systems behave differently than those in inanimate objects.

They don't "behave" any differently. They work EXACTLY the same.
In fact a great deal of medicine is built on the fact they DO work the same, and do so predictably.

You ignorance is FAR more profound than we had imagined.

Give me two examples of chemicals that "behave differently" in living systems.
I guarantee I will debunk your BS.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-07-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 01:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Science cannot explain why the chemicals in a living systems behave differently than those in inanimate objects.

They don't "behave" any differently. They work EXACTLY the same.
In fact a great deal of medicine is built on the fact they DO work the same, and do so predictably.

You ignorance is FAR more profound than we had imagined.

Give me two examples of chemicals that "behave differently" in living systems.
I guarantee I will debunk your BS.

Geezus, Bucky, forget telling us about it... if he has evidence that some chemicals behave differently from others in living systems, he needs to PUBLISH IT RIGHT NOW, so he isn't scooped by another "researcher" and lose out on his Nobel Prize in Chemistry!!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-07-2016, 03:56 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 03:37 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 03:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They don't "behave" any differently. They work EXACTLY the same.
In fact a great deal of medicine is built on the fact they DO work the same, and do so predictably.

You ignorance is FAR more profound than we had imagined.

Give me two examples of chemicals that "behave differently" in living systems.
I guarantee I will debunk your BS.

Geezus, Bucky, forget telling us about it... if he has evidence that some chemicals behave differently from others in living systems, he needs to PUBLISH IT RIGHT NOW, so he isn't scooped by another "researcher" and lose out on his Nobel Prize in Chemistry!!

I just KNEW those little potassium chlorides started having a good time when they got "in there". That's why an IV can burn. They're spicy little devils. Weeping

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
06-07-2016, 04:27 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 01:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Science cannot explain why the chemicals in a living systems behave differently than those in inanimate objects.

wtf Willis?

Testosterone don't work on rocks the same way because rocks don't have androgen receptors.
THC don't work on rocks the same way because they got no cannabinoid receptors (although almost every living thing does).
Insulin don't work the same way on rocks because their blood sugar levels are constant.
Oxygen don't work the same way on idiots because they got no brains.

Could be the stupidest thing I've ever read.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
06-07-2016, 05:22 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 12:24 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 08:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  What do you mean by 'spontaneously'?. In an isolated system that is essentially true, but we are not dealing with closed systems.
Energy added to the system can increase the order and energy of the system.

"Spontaneous" is a fundamental concept of chemistry. If you don't understand it, I don't have time to explain it.

Try parsing the whole post this time. Facepalm

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
07-07-2016, 04:44 PM
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.



As I expected this video just suggested a bunch of high level “well maybe it happened this way” speculations. It is old and most of its’ speculation have subsequently been disproven. I do not claim to be smarter than him, but the research that has occurred slammed the door on most his ideas.

RNA is very unstable. It uses ribose vs deoxyribose so it wants to react with water. It cannot withstand the high temperatures of a geothermal vent as suggested. It has to be shielded from water so the permeable membranes suggested won’t work. He reinforced what I have told you that RNA has never been shown to replicate itself. It can catalyze a few reactions, by not a huge variety.

He also proposes that the cell evolved over time from something simple to what we see today. However, all modern cell structures are remarkably similar within all species. There is no evidence that there has been evolution within a cell.
He made no attempt to explain how metabolism occurred. He just waved his hands at how proteins were formed from amino acids.

I used to think abiogenesis was possible, but the research conducted over the last several decades has been harsh. There hasn’t been any good news since the 50’s.
He did not address my question.

It is a fact that living things extract energy from the environment to lower entropy but inanimate objects do not. The basic drive of chemistry is toward higher entropy and lower energy. When inanimate self-ordering things such as hurricanes or Bernoulli cells run out heat/warm water or whatever is driving them, they cease. They do not seek out energy as living things do. That is how atoms in living things behave differently than those in inanimate objects.

If an amoeba is just a bunch of atoms in a low state of entropy and a high state of energy far from equilibrium, it should just decompose as an inanimate object would. Why doesn’t it follow the basic drives of chemistry and just decompose???

I can kinda accept self-preservation in a sentient being, but not in a simple life form or the simple chemical systems described in the story of abiogenesis. When those replicator molecules or pre-biotic chemical systems ran out of energy, they would have just ceased.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 04:47 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 05:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 12:24 PM)u196533 Wrote:  "Spontaneous" is a fundamental concept of chemistry. If you don't understand it, I don't have time to explain it.

Try parsing the whole post this time. Facepalm


I am not discussing basic thermodynamics. Yes. Energy added to an open system can lower it's entropy. However in a chemical system, a reaction that increases energy and lowers entropy will not occur spontaneously. In order to that to occur some other force must be in play. Please spend a few minutes googling Gibbs Free energy equation. That should give you enough background to follow the conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 04:55 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 02:51 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 01:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Science cannot explain why the chemicals in a living systems behave differently than those in inanimate objects.
What chemicals, why and how do they behave differently?

And again, you are claiming a boundary between living systems and inanimate objects.
Please explain where this boundary is where the "chemicals behave diffrently".
Quote:I don't know what the absolute boundary is, and it is not relevant to this discussion.
In context of your statement above, how can this be irrelevant?

I am discussing the basic story of abiogenesis.
Start with a replicator molecule that is clearly not alive. It replicates and mutates to RNA (All of the research into replicators has squelched that idea.)
It finds a membrane and then somehow develops a metabolic system. Eventually you have a microbial life form that nobody would deny is alive.

Somewhere in that pathway (that is a huge climb up a thermodynamic mountain ) these chemical systems had to develop self-preservation and seek energy from the environment to continue to lower their entropy. Exactly where that occurred is not that critical.

Only chemical reactions in living systems increase energy and lower entropy spontaneously. That violates the basic drive of chemistry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2016, 05:00 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(06-07-2016 02:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 01:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I don't know what the absolute boundary is, and it is not relevant to this discussion.
You can't possibly be serious ? YOU have been saying all along in this thread that "life this and life that" in terms of what it requires and does. And NOW, we find you can't even tell us what it is ? OMG. You are a fake.

Quote:Why doesn't an amoeba just stop taking on energy and cease like any other chemical system would?
Science has never answered that and it is not addressed in the literature. Science cannot explain why the chemicals in a living systems behave differently than those in inanimate objects.

Yes it can, and yes it has. DNA. Evolved systems employ DNA. You have NO understanding of Biochemistry.
DNA encodes for structures, behaviors, memories, reflexes, instinctual behaviors, etc etc. You need to take Biology 101, and not from a fool creationist.

And BTW, "appeal to authority" is a fallacy and invalid ONLY if the "authority" is in some other field, than the one in question. You say everything you can't answer is "strawman". LOL.
(I get you people like to pretend to be "logical" and pretend to know about Logic).
In fact Szostack is one of the leading authorities IN THIS FIELD in the world, so an appeal to what he knows and says, is perfectly legitimate, (as opposed to you, you who are a total amateur), and know next to nothing about Biology and Biochemistry.

Early primitive life forms did not have DNA per the story of abiogenesis. Szostack theorized RNA not DNA. I think he would acknowledge that the ideas in his video are no longer valid. If you are going to appeal to an authority, get the latest and greatest.
Once again, Do you even read and understand the garbage you post?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: