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, 10:28 AM
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. 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.

Never? Really?

Because that's exactly how we get oil. The fatty acids and other biomonomers left over from ancient phytoplankton get converted by high temperatures within the earth into long-chain hydrocarbons that contain enough energy to power our cars.

The most notable process is the conversion of major biological building blocks, or biopolymers (proteins, cellulose, and lipids), into their individual components biomonomers (amino acids, sugars, and fatty acids). These accumulate in the sediments, which, as they settle due to overburden, begin to be heated by the earth's geothermal gradient, which averages about 1.2°F per 100 feet of burial. Hence, sediment buried to 10,000 feet would have a temperature increase of 120°F over its ambient temperature at the surface. During this process, the biomonomers begin to react among themselves, growing into a complex two-dimensional refractory organic structure known as kerogen. [...]

(Bold emphasis is, of course, my own.)

https://www.pacelabs.com/environmental-s...oleum.html

(08-07-2016 08:30 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

WTF is this gibberish? We're not claiming that single-celled (or protocelled) organisms have "self-preservation" in the same sense as complex organisms. If you'll read the articles I posted, above, they talk about the sources of energy for the reactions occurring, in order to drive the chemistry involved. It's one of the fundamental questions they must ask any time they're conducting such experiments. For you to ignore that fact is fundamentally dishonest. Lying for Jesus is still lying.

(08-07-2016 08:30 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

You're quite right: the environment was not stable. Nor was it uniform.

But it was cooling off. As soon as anywhere on earth, at that time, was cool enough for these reactions to occur, it would have only gotten better over that "thousands of years". Also, Goldilocks zones need not be stable over that time period, anyway... they need only be in contact with the location of the previous site, so the life therein can "migrate" over successive generations, as it does for example when forest boundaries move north/south due to changing climate.

As for the energy, we have pointed you to three sources of such energy which are inexhaustible: the sun, the heat of the earth, and the chemical bonds of materials available near the vents (and elsewhere of course).

Why you think the processes and energy sources that drive life even today weren't available, then, I can't fathom.

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
08-07-2016, 10:35 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
This is how it works.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...s-14024533

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
08-07-2016, 11:39 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Bucky, I think he's not really questioning photosynthesis in plants, but where the chemistry that would "create" the first life got its energy, prior to the development of more-complex systems for attaining such energies, like photosynthesis. It's a valid question.

However, it's just a Google search away, which makes me think he's not being honest with us. Lying for Jesus, and all that.

To anyone asking about abiogenesis chemistry, I tend to point them to NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab researchers, who are addressing the question not only out of curiosity about life on earth but because they need to figure the process out so they can look for other places, perhaps in the Solar System, where the same process may have made life on other bodies we can soon reach. This is of course critical in determining where we send future probes, and what equipment they should bring along. They've come quite a long way in answering the "impossible" questions the Creationists ask.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-079

"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
08-07-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(08-07-2016 11:39 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Bucky, I think he's not really questioning photosynthesis in plants, but where the chemistry that would "create" the first life got its energy, prior to the development of more-complex systems for attaining such energies, like photosynthesis. It's a valid question.

However, it's just a Google search away, which makes me think he's not being honest with us. Lying for Jesus, and all that.

To anyone asking about abiogenesis chemistry, I tend to point them to NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab researchers, who are addressing the question not only out of curiosity about life on earth but because they need to figure the process out so they can look for other places, perhaps in the Solar System, where the same process may have made life on other bodies we can soon reach. This is of course critical in determining where we send future probes, and what equipment they should bring along. They've come quite a long way in answering the "impossible" questions the Creationists ask.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-079

But he's saying the chemistry in life forms acts differently than it does in non-life forms. That's totally false, and we know how it works, and how energy is obtained, transferred and used.

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
26-07-2016, 01:43 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 01:44 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(08-07-2016 11:39 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Bucky, I think he's not really questioning photosynthesis in plants, but where the chemistry that would "create" the first life got its energy, prior to the development of more-complex systems for attaining such energies, like photosynthesis. It's a valid question.

However, it's just a Google search away, which makes me think he's not being honest with us. Lying for Jesus, and all that.

To anyone asking about abiogenesis chemistry, I tend to point them to NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab researchers, who are addressing the question not only out of curiosity about life on earth but because they need to figure the process out so they can look for other places, perhaps in the Solar System, where the same process may have made life on other bodies we can soon reach. This is of course critical in determining where we send future probes, and what equipment they should bring along. They've come quite a long way in answering the "impossible" questions the Creationists ask.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-079

At last someone that understands my high school level argument.
It is not a question of where those prebiotic chemical systems got their energy, it is more a question of why and how would a chemical system seek energy in order to lower it’s entropy in violation of the basic drives of chemistry. Consider other self-ordering things like a hurricane. When they run out of energy (hot water) they cease. Only living things seek energy in order to lower entropy, so in that sense the atoms in living things do behave differently than inanimate objects.
It is not a google search away. I have been looking into it for years. I used to be agnostic (I’m not religious), but I changed my mind after researching abiogenesis. After considering the thermodynamic aspects, I am now convinced that atheism is untenable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 01:48 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(08-07-2016 10:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(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. 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.

Never? Really?

Because that's exactly how we get oil. The fatty acids and other biomonomers left over from ancient phytoplankton get converted by high temperatures within the earth into long-chain hydrocarbons that contain enough energy to power our cars.

The most notable process is the conversion of major biological building blocks, or biopolymers (proteins, cellulose, and lipids), into their individual components biomonomers (amino acids, sugars, and fatty acids). These accumulate in the sediments, which, as they settle due to overburden, begin to be heated by the earth's geothermal gradient, which averages about 1.2°F per 100 feet of burial. Hence, sediment buried to 10,000 feet would have a temperature increase of 120°F over its ambient temperature at the surface. During this process, the biomonomers begin to react among themselves, growing into a complex two-dimensional refractory organic structure known as kerogen. [...]

(Bold emphasis is, of course, my own.)

https://www.pacelabs.com/environmental-s...oleum.html

(08-07-2016 08:30 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

WTF is this gibberish? We're not claiming that single-celled (or protocelled) organisms have "self-preservation" in the same sense as complex organisms. If you'll read the articles I posted, above, they talk about the sources of energy for the reactions occurring, in order to drive the chemistry involved. It's one of the fundamental questions they must ask any time they're conducting such experiments. For you to ignore that fact is fundamentally dishonest. Lying for Jesus is still lying.

(08-07-2016 08:30 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

You're quite right: the environment was not stable. Nor was it uniform.

But it was cooling off. As soon as anywhere on earth, at that time, was cool enough for these reactions to occur, it would have only gotten better over that "thousands of years". Also, Goldilocks zones need not be stable over that time period, anyway... they need only be in contact with the location of the previous site, so the life therein can "migrate" over successive generations, as it does for example when forest boundaries move north/south due to changing climate.

As for the energy, we have pointed you to three sources of such energy which are inexhaustible: the sun, the heat of the earth, and the chemical bonds of materials available near the vents (and elsewhere of course).

Why you think the processes and energy sources that drive life even today weren't available, then, I can't fathom.

We get oil because the resulting hyrdocarbons are in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy than the living thing that died and decayed. You are describing the thermodynamics of decay, not the emergence of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 01:51 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 01:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  After considering the thermodynamic aspects, I am now convinced that atheism is untenable.

So your new found faith is called thermodynamism? Or have you perchance found a deity to hang your faith on? Perhaps one by the name of Jesus Christ, the One True Saviour of the World, who died to save us evolved primates from going to hell for the sin of buggery and assorted other sins like not believing in invisible, undemonstrable Yahweh?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
26-07-2016, 01:59 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Quote:the atoms in living things do behave differently than inanimate objects

Popcorn

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
26-07-2016, 02:10 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 01:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 01:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  After considering the thermodynamic aspects, I am now convinced that atheism is untenable.

So your new found faith is called thermodynamism? Or have you perchance found a deity to hang your faith on? Perhaps one by the name of Jesus Christ, the One True Saviour of the World, who died to save us evolved primates from going to hell for the sin of buggery and assorted other sins like not believing in invisible, undemonstrable Yahweh?

Thermodynamics is a field of science that is critical to mechanical engineering and chemistry. If you understood the science behind abiogenesis, you would conclude via scientific reasoning that abiogenesis could not have occurred naturally. Faith is not required, but a knowledge of science is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: