The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2016, 03:13 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Quote:If you understood the science behind xxx, you would conclude via scientific reasoning that xxx could not have occurred naturally.
Popcorn

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
26-07-2016, 03:36 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 01:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Consider other self-ordering things like a hurricane. When they run out of energy (hot water) they cease.

And when you run out of food, you will cease. What is the problem? I see no difference.

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 03:53 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 03:36 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 01:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Consider other self-ordering things like a hurricane. When they run out of energy (hot water) they cease.

And when you run out of food, you will cease. What is the problem? I see no difference.

The difference is that living things seek out energy in oder to lower entropy. We aren't force fed the energy to drive those chemical reactions that would not occur spontaneously.
Consider the story of abiogenesis. Start with a replicator molecule (100 years of research have yet to find one outside of a cell but I won't argue that.) It replicates and evolves (None of the synthetic molecules replicated when they were changed to effect mutation but I won't argue that either.) Eventually RNA , along with a means of metabolism and cell membranes were formed.
That entire process that took millions of years and trillions of chemical reactions. It was a steep climb up a huge mountain from a thermodynamics perspective. Each step upward left the chemical system farther from equilibrium (higher energy and lower entropy). Those atoms would be unstable and would tend to decompose. (e.g. RNA/DNA etc are notoriously unstable.)

At some point that chemical system had to seek out energy in order to survive. Self preservation can be explained in a sentient being, but not in a simple prebiotic chemical system or prokaryote.

A chemical system would just decompose into it's constituent atoms in order to lower its energy and raise its entropy. Why would a primitive amoeba seek out energy versus just die as an inanimate object would?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 03:55 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 05:01 PM by Stevil.)
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.
I think part of the problem is assuming there was a "first life". As if there was some life compatible structure which was missing that "spark of life", but then somehow life was breathed into it, it's heart started pumping, it's brain started thinking.


Life is a complicated term to try to understand.
Of course we can tell when an animal is alive and when it is dead (in most circumstances).
A dead animal does not move of it's own accord. It's heart doesn't beat, it has no brain activity, it doesn't breath.
But what if it's brain dead, while its body is still "alive", kept alive by a respirator?
Is it dead or alive?
What about a fertilised egg, some people debate whether it is a living human or not.
What about a human ear grafted onto the back of a mouse? Is it alive?
What about Artificial Intelligence? At what point could we consider a machine constructed of metal and plastic and batteries alive?

But then if we term plants and animals to be alive, what about bacteria or what about viruses?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Quote:The definition of life is controversial. The current definition(according to whom?) is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. However, many other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are also some borderline cases, such as viruses. Biophysicists have also proposed some definitions, many being based on chemical systems

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/star...ition.html
Quote: Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

With regards to
Quote:where the chemistry that would "create" the first life got its energy

Of course, with relation to life on Earth, the answer is the Sun.
At some point Earth was a baron rock, The Sun was there, and now Earth is covered with life forms and the Sun is still there, still providing most of our energy.
There is also energy inside the Earth. With gravity pulling everything towards the center this creates heat and hence we have magma and molten lava.
When the Sun runs out of Energy then life on Earth will die out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-07-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 01:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

Anthropomorphize much?
Who claims that chemical systems seek energy?
Why do you think chemistry has "basic drives"?

Quote: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.

The atoms in living things behave exactly like the atoms in non-living things. You are making a massive category error.

Quote: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.

You seem to have a very misguided view of thermodynamics but even if you were completely correct all it means is that there is something we do not understand. Plugging in a god to your gap doesn't actually explain anything, it just wraps up what you don't understand with a nice little label.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
26-07-2016, 05:48 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 03:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.
I think part of the problem is assuming there was a "first life". As if there was some life compatible structure which was missing that "spark of life", but then somehow life was breathed into it, it's heart started pumping, it's brain started thinking.


Life is a complicated term to try to understand.
Of course we can tell when an animal is alive and when it is dead (in most circumstances).
A dead animal does not move of it's own accord. It's heart doesn't beat, it has no brain activity, it doesn't breath.
But what if it's brain dead, while its body is still "alive", kept alive by a respirator?
Is it dead or alive?
What about a fertilised egg, some people debate whether it is a living human or not.
What about a human ear grafted onto the back of a mouse? Is it alive?
What about Artificial Intelligence? At what point could we consider a machine constructed of metal and plastic and batteries alive?

But then if we term plants and animals to be alive, what about bacteria or what about viruses?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Quote:The definition of life is controversial. The current definition(according to whom?) is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. However, many other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are also some borderline cases, such as viruses. Biophysicists have also proposed some definitions, many being based on chemical systems

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/star...ition.html
Quote: Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

With regards to
Quote:where the chemistry that would "create" the first life got its energy

Of course, with relation to life on Earth, the answer is the Sun.
At some point Earth was a baron rock, The Sun was there, and now Earth is covered with life forms and the Sun is still there, still providing most of our energy.
There is also energy inside the Earth. With gravity pulling everything towards the center this creates heat and hence we have magma and molten lava.
When the Sun runs out of Energy then life on Earth will die out.

It doesn't have to be first life. Somewhere along the path from replicator molecule to some primitive thing that would clearly be alive, those chemicals started to seek energy in order to lower their entropy, and that is a violation of the basic drive of chemistry. It is akin to a hurricane abruptly changing direction to find warm water vs approaching land.

Why doesn't an amoeba dust die and decompose as an inanimate collection of atoms would do in order to lower its energy and increase entropy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes u196533's post
26-07-2016, 05:58 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 03:58 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Anthropomorphize much?
Who claims that chemical systems seek energy?
Why do you think chemistry has "basic drives"?

The atoms in living things behave exactly like the atoms in non-living things. You are making a massive category error.

You seem to have a very misguided view of thermodynamics but even if you were completely correct all it means is that there is something we do not understand. Plugging in a god to your gap doesn't actually explain anything, it just wraps up what you don't understand with a nice little label.

According to the story of abiogenesis chemical systems evolved from replicator molecule to life. That is a huge climb up a thermodynamic mountain and took millions of years. Each major step up moved the atoms farther from equilibrium and made them more and more unstable. It is inconceivable that the energy was "force fed" into chemical systems to force them to react in ways that would lower their entropy and increase energy for millions of years. At some point in that story prior to photosynthesis, those primitive life forms had to seek energy.

See Gibbs Free Energy equation to understand the basic drives. It is not an advanced topic.

Living things seek energy to lower entropy. Inanimate objects do not. If you were to analyze any living thing as a simple collection of atoms, you would conclude that they would decompose. Seeking energy to lower entropy does not happen spontaneously in inanimate objects. That is how the atoms associated with life behaves differently from non-life.

Something that violates the laws of physics is kinda the definition of supernatural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2016, 06:01 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
U boat. There's a convoy 30 degrees to port. Go hassle them.

Quick smart. Tally ho and all that Jerry. Smile

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
26-07-2016, 06:04 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 05:48 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 03:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think part of the problem is assuming there was a "first life". As if there was some life compatible structure which was missing that "spark of life", but then somehow life was breathed into it, it's heart started pumping, it's brain started thinking.


Life is a complicated term to try to understand.
Of course we can tell when an animal is alive and when it is dead (in most circumstances).
A dead animal does not move of it's own accord. It's heart doesn't beat, it has no brain activity, it doesn't breath.
But what if it's brain dead, while its body is still "alive", kept alive by a respirator?
Is it dead or alive?
What about a fertilised egg, some people debate whether it is a living human or not.
What about a human ear grafted onto the back of a mouse? Is it alive?
What about Artificial Intelligence? At what point could we consider a machine constructed of metal and plastic and batteries alive?

But then if we term plants and animals to be alive, what about bacteria or what about viruses?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/star...ition.html

With regards to

Of course, with relation to life on Earth, the answer is the Sun.
At some point Earth was a baron rock, The Sun was there, and now Earth is covered with life forms and the Sun is still there, still providing most of our energy.
There is also energy inside the Earth. With gravity pulling everything towards the center this creates heat and hence we have magma and molten lava.
When the Sun runs out of Energy then life on Earth will die out.

It doesn't have to be first life. Somewhere along the path from replicator molecule to some primitive thing that would clearly be alive, those chemicals started to seek energy in order to lower their entropy, and that is a violation of the basic drive of chemistry. It is akin to a hurricane abruptly changing direction to find warm water vs approaching land.

Why doesn't an amoeba dust die and decompose as an inanimate collection of atoms would do in order to lower its energy and increase entropy?

Not this shit again.
Because it is driven by DNA.
Fucktard has no basic knowledge of biology.

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, 06:25 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 06:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not this shit again.
Because it is driven by DNA.
Fucktard has no basic knowledge of biology.

DNA did not exist at that point in the process of abiogenesis.
You have no basic knowledge of abiogenesis. Please refrain from posting until you do. (It is better to be silent and thought an idiot that to speak and remove all doubt.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: