The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2016, 01:32 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
You made a claim that "Science cannot explain why the chemicals in a living systems behave differently than those in inanimate objects."

You have still not explained in what way chemicals behave differently.

You have wriggled and evaded on numerous claims but let's hear what you have to say on this specific claim.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
08-07-2016, 01:41 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 07:42 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 06:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  That wasn't my point. The point is that your contentions about entropy and "driving force" are horseshit. And what is this 'self-preservation' you've invented?
"The point is that your contentions about entropy and "driving force" are horseshit."
WOW.
I have mentioned Gibbs free energy multiple times and you said you understood it.

I didn't invent self -preservation. It is kind of a well understood fact. It keeps living things eating, fighting to stay alive and not committing suicide.

Please explain your "driving force".

Please explain how molecules or collections of molecules exhibit "self-preservation".

You cannot apply the emergent properties of complex, evolved organisms to molecules or simple organisms, yet that is what you keep blathering on with.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
08-07-2016, 03:43 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Where did you get the claim that RNA "breaks down" at temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit? In the genetics lab where I worked in college, one of the first steps in preparing to scan the DNA we were looking at was to break it down into two separated strands by heating it up to over 95 degrees Celsius (that'd be ~203 F), causing the hydrogen bonds between the strands to break. And guess what? We did that so we could *read the strand*, meaning it didn't damage the strands, just separated the paired DNA nucleotides along the strand.

Secondly, why do you assume uniform temperatures, even in a world with a much hotter environment? Have you never heard of ocean currents and/or the concept of a "Goldilocks zone" at a set distance from a source of heat?

[Image: hydrothermal-sea-vents.jpg]

Hydrothermal vents don't mean the water is the temperature of the magma. It means that the products of the vent get dispersed into the area around the vent, and provide warmth as well as nutrients which life may use even in the absence of light, in order to form a biosphere.

If you'd like to actually learn about thermal vents as a possible location, and how the chemistry for that appears to work in terms of the abiogenesis question, you can start with a couple of locations:

From the National Institutes of Health, a summary of basic problems and the state of knowledge on the question as of 2013:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

More recently (2015), chemists claim to have essentially answered the question:
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-ri...earth.html

And some of the latest research also points to geothermally active areas:
http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-on-...-on-earth/

Either you are confused, or you are lying to us (I suspect you do not think you are lying, but are unaware that someone else whom you trust as a source is lying to you so that you can go out there and "spread the Word" by lying to us). I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you of one of my favorite sayings: "Lying for Jesus is still lying."

"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
08-07-2016, 04:47 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(08-07-2016 03:43 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Secondly, why do you assume uniform temperatures, even in a world with a much hotter environment?

Because the full thermodynamic equation(s) he is talking about depend on temperature t and pressure p as well, and only of you set t and p = const. you can make simplified statements like the ones we are talking about here?

I am talking about d/dt and d/dp.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(07-07-2016 08:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 08:21 PM)u196533 Wrote:  What I have stated it common knowledge to anyone familiar with abiogenesis. Since you don't have a clue, I'll try to find time to provide the specific evidence later.
All you need to do is spend a few minutes googling the stability of nucleic acids to find that they break apart at temps in the 90 F or greater. Therefore a geothermal vent could not be a possible site for its' origin.
Then google why RNA is unstable compared to DNA to find that it is hydrophilic. That makes it is clear that a permeable membrane that allows in water would not be a plausible explanation.
Then it is common knowledge that all cellular structures are remarkably similar. That should be pretty easy to validate.

We eat food (consume energy). That powers the Krebs cycle. For your sake, I truly hope you are faking this extreme stupidity.

The fact that life may not have begun near a geothermal vent is no support for your garbage, gramps. Membranes are hydrophobic, and hydrophilic. Some are lipophilic and some are lipophobic. You bullshit is meaningless. There are other possibile mechanisms other than your one. Cellular structures are NOT "remarkably similar". They are remarkably DIFFERENT ... you know NOTHING about Biology. Gram negative cell walls are very different from gram positive cell walls. We do consume energy. The Krebs cycle transforms the food to useful energy, and makes it available, (releases) the energy from food. There is no "vital energy". The mechanisms of energy and chemical transformation are EXACTLY the same as non living reactions. You are too stupid to know what they are, and how they work. There is NOT ONE Biologist in the world that agrees with your crap, AND you are a hypocrite. You use the medical system ... the very system built on the OPPOSITE of what you claim.

Anything you claim requires experimental evidence to support it. Provide that, or get lost.
Where are your videos ?

Ah. Moving the goalposts now. There is no point in providing videos since I pointed out the fallacies in your video. I prefer to present my views in my own words. Since you don't really understand your own views, you are forced to post anything off the internet that is remotely related to the topic.

This is not biology. It is basic chemistry. How many times do I have to state this very simple argument?
Living things spontaneously extract energy from the environment in order to lower their entropy. That is a violation of the basic drive of chemistry to lower energy and increase entropy. That has never been observed in in inanimate object.

Science cannot explain this. Self preservation is an emergent property that science, which is reductionistic (top-down), cannot explain. It can do some hand waving to describe it in sentient beings, but can't even try to explain self-preservation in the pre-biotic chemical systems described in abiogenesis.

This process went on for hundreds of thousands of years. It is not plausible to assume a Goldilocks environment driving those chemical reactions for that period of time. I would have trouble believing a stable environment on earth back then for more than a few weeks, let alone thousands of years. At some point in that process those chemical systems would have had to seek out energy in order to survive. Any other chemical system would simply cease thus lowering their energy and increasing their entropy.

Please stop with the strawman, and actually respond to my argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 08:33 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(08-07-2016 04:47 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(08-07-2016 03:43 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Secondly, why do you assume uniform temperatures, even in a world with a much hotter environment?

Because the full thermodynamic equation(s) he is talking about depend on temperature t and pressure p as well, and only of you set t and p = const. you can make simplified statements like the ones we are talking about here?

I am talking about d/dt and d/dp.

I do not assume uniform temperatures. All it would take is a few minutes above 95 or 100 to destroy RNA.

(You are talking about the ideal gas law. That is not applicable. )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 08:37 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(08-07-2016 01:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-07-2016 07:42 PM)u196533 Wrote:  "The point is that your contentions about entropy and "driving force" are horseshit."
WOW.
I have mentioned Gibbs free energy multiple times and you said you understood it.

I didn't invent self -preservation. It is kind of a well understood fact. It keeps living things eating, fighting to stay alive and not committing suicide.

Please explain your "driving force".

Please explain how molecules or collections of molecules exhibit "self-preservation".

You cannot apply the emergent properties of complex, evolved organisms to molecules or simple organisms, yet that is what you keep blathering on with.

How many times do I have to state this??
This process went on for hundreds of thousands of years. It is not plausible to assume a Goldilocks environment driving those chemical reactions for that period of time. I would have trouble believing a stable environment on earth back then for more than a few weeks, let alone thousands of years. At some point in that process those chemical systems would have had to seek out energy in order to survive. Any other chemical system would simply cease thus lowering their energy and increasing their entropy.

I agree that a simple chemical system cannot exhibitself preservation. That is my whole point. But YOU would have to believe that in order to explain abiogenesis. That point is skipped over in the literature for obvious reasons.
Do you get it now?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 08:48 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2016 09:16 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(08-07-2016 08:30 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Ah. Moving the goalposts now. There is no point in providing videos since I pointed out the fallacies in your video.

Ah yes. All your fake little "goalposts", "strawmen", "authority", "ad homs" bullshit replies.

"Views" with no evidence are worthless. You made claims concerning your opinions about the video I posted. You presented no specific evidence. You discussed no specific reactions/molecular models WITH EVIDENCE. You said you had videos. Obviously you were lying.

Quote:This is not biology. It is basic chemistry. How many times do I have to state this very simple argument?

And that's 100 % wrong. YOU claimed chemistry in living things is different. It's NOT. At all. The Kreb's (Cytric acid) cycle transforms energy taken in as food, IN THE SAME CHEMICAL reactions that occur outside of living systems, and makes the energy available. THAT is Biology, and you are TOTALLY ignorant of how that works, as you are a scientific fraud.

Quote:Living things spontaneously extract energy from the environment in order to lower their entropy. That is a violation of the basic drive of chemistry to lower energy and increase entropy. That has never been observed in in inanimate object.

They do not. The use energy available from their environment to power their living systems ... which is a Biological process ... HUNGER ... is a BIOLOGICAL process. You are just totally unaware of how Biology works.

Quote:Science cannot explain this. Self preservation is an emergent property that science, which is reductionistic (top-down), cannot explain. It can do some hand waving to describe it in sentient beings, but can't even try to explain self-preservation in the pre-biotic chemical systems described in abiogenesis.

Science HAS explained this. The process of hunger>eating is well known to science. You are just too stupid to get it. NOT ONE scientist in the entire world agrees with this crap. You would FLUNK out of any accredited school, and LAUGHED out of any Biology graduate or medical program. You have created (in your own mind) a fictional pile of bullshit, (which BTW is "bottom up", not "top down".)

Quote:This process went on for hundreds of thousands of years. It is not plausible to assume a Goldilocks environment driving those chemical reactions for that period of time. I would have trouble believing a stable environment on earth back then for more than a few weeks, let alone thousands of years. At some point in that process those chemical systems would have had to seek out energy in order to survive. Any other chemical system would simply cease thus lowering their energy and increasing their entropy.

You have no evidence for that. It's biological, not (just) chemical. You are an ignorant fool, who can't see the forest for the trees. You're the typical "You-Tube" nut case we get here all the time. You *think* you have something every other scientist on Earth missed. You got nothing. You're a complete scientific fraud. You have no credentials and no references for your garbage.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...eplicator/

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
08-07-2016, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2016 09:03 AM by Chas.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(08-07-2016 08:37 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(08-07-2016 01:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please explain your "driving force".

Please explain how molecules or collections of molecules exhibit "self-preservation".

You cannot apply the emergent properties of complex, evolved organisms to molecules or simple organisms, yet that is what you keep blathering on with.

How many times do I have to state this??
This process went on for hundreds of thousands of years. It is not plausible to assume a Goldilocks environment driving those chemical reactions for that period of time. I would have trouble believing a stable environment on earth back then for more than a few weeks, let alone thousands of years. At some point in that process those chemical systems would have had to seek out energy in order to survive. Any other chemical system would simply cease thus lowering their energy and increasing their entropy.

There was and still is energy continuously added to the system from the sun, not to mention the earth's own heat and radioactivity.

We know from the prevalence of life in an enormous range of habitats that the Goldilocks Zone is quite wide.

Quote:I agree that a simple chemical system cannot exhibitself preservation. That is my whole point. But YOU would have to believe that in order to explain abiogenesis. That point is skipped over in the literature for obvious reasons.
Do you get it now?

Get what? What is skipped over? Your straw man "self-preservation" applied to simple organisms?

Tell me how mosses and lichens have "self-preservation". Consider

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
08-07-2016, 09:08 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(08-07-2016 03:43 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Where did you get the claim that RNA "breaks down" at temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit?
Wow!
I'm not a biologist, but even I know if RNA broke down at 90°F we wouldn't exist.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: