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, 10:02 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 08:07 PM)u196533 Wrote:  "Living things do not seek to lower entropy." That is flat out false. In fact lower entropy is one of the definitions used in many descriptions of life.
The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.
A living thing isn't a closed system.
Living things do not seek to lower entropy. I am a living thing and I do not seek to lower entropy. I don't know what the hell you are on about with this assertion.

A living thing does represent some kind of order, because the DNA is a recipe and the cells are a biological factory. Atoms are carefully put together into proteins, cells are carefully constructed, rules are followed and ordered structures are created.
But this, in no way violates the 2nd law.
(26-07-2016 08:07 PM)u196533 Wrote:  My argument is regarding the thermodynamics associated with abiogenesis. Your discussion of evolution is totally irrelevant and will be summarily dismissed.
If you are talking about abiogenesis then why are you mentioning "living things seek to lower entropy". If they are already living then we aren't talking about "abiogenesis".
From the context of "abiogenesis" it matters not what living things do or seek.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-07-2016, 10:10 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2016 10:35 PM by Stevil.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 08:03 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Fact: All things, except living things, tend toward lower energy and higher entropy.
False. 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
(26-07-2016 08:03 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Fact: Living things seek energy to lower entropy
False
Living things generally seek to survive and procreate.
You could perhaps say that living things seek energy to survive. That would be true. And the reason why they seek energy is because they are constantly losing usable energy. They need energy coming from an external source in order to survive.
Take away that external source such as the sun and food and warmth and living things will die.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-07-2016, 10:48 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 02:10 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 01:51 PM)morondog Wrote:  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.

Don't dodge the question, chump. Since you've concluded that atheism is untenable, presumably you have decided on a deity - which one? Or like every other two bit crank in history, have you invented your very own special one? By the way what makes your deity exempt from thermodynamic laws?

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
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
26-07-2016, 11:31 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.

No, chemicals don't 'seek' anything. Facepalm
Energy is added to a system and that causes an endothermic reaction to proceed.
You utterly misunderstand chemistry. And thermodynamics.

Quote: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?

That is silly beyond belief. An organism is getting energy from outside itself and that drives its metabolism.

Organisms are not trying to increase entropy.

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
26-07-2016, 11:39 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 11:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  That is silly beyond belief. An organism is getting energy from outside itself and that drives its metabolism.

Organisms are not trying to increase entropy.

Well ol' u196533 seems to be increasing the amount of random hot air in the universe quite nicely.

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
27-07-2016, 12:26 AM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2016 12:36 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Quote: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.

How can you claim to have come to the conclusion "life is supernatural" by using science, when science is the investigation of natural penomena?

Like Peebo i would like to know what the difference is between a hydrogen atom in my body (being effectively a proton and a electron) and a hydrogen atom in a glass of water i am going to drink now.
When i drink some water, at what point and how (and based on what causes/mechanisms) does that hydrogen atom (a lepton and a baryon) change into a different atom?
If this lepton and baryon are different inside my body from similar leptons and baryons outside, then you are claiming that our complete foundation for particle physics is wrong. Have you discussed this with any scientist who is working in this field of science?

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
27-07-2016, 01:37 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 12:26 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote: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.

How can you claim to have come to the conclusion "life is supernatural" by using science, when science is the investigation of natural penomena?

And here we come full circle (almost). As the OP I started this thread talking about an idiotic creationist who claimed that the creation of the universe was "beyond the remit of science"............therefore it was supernatural.

And we have u196533 claiming that the creation of life was supernatural.

Was is it about these people? Conflating their own misunderstandings about chemistry, physics and biology with personal incredulity.......therefore GAWD.

Nope. Drinking Beverage

Yes come one now u196533..........what is the difference between a hydrogen atom in my body and a hydrogen atom in a glass of water?

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
[+] 4 users Like Silly Deity's post
27-07-2016, 02:05 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 01:37 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  what is the difference between a hydrogen atom in my body and a hydrogen atom in a glass of water?

Position Tongue And it is animated by your life-force. Same principle that flying pigs operate on.

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
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
27-07-2016, 04:27 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 02:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  Position Tongue And it is animated by your life-force. Same principle that flying pigs operate on.

*TIP.

Never go out without an umbrella!

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
[+] 5 users Like Banjo's post
27-07-2016, 05:56 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 07:52 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I bring up the Gibbs Free Energy equation as a simple way to explain the drive toward lower energy and higher entropy for people who clearly have no background in chemistry or thermodynamics. The drive toward lower energy and higher entropy applies to ALL systems.

You keep using "drive" as if theses systems had a conscious intent. You're basically smuggling your preferred conclusion into the premise of your argument. It's a prime example of the pathetic fallacy. There is no "drive towards lower energy" and you still do not appear to grasp the difference between open and closed systems. Yes, the second law applies everywhere but entropy can decrease when energy is added to a local system without any "drive" or "seeking".

Quote:Just because energy is available does not mean that a reaction will occur. Those reactions will not occur spontaneously.

Reactions do occur spontaneously. It's called chemistry and physics. If you didn't assume that there has to be a driving force behind everything you might understand how utterly foolish your claims sound.

Quote:Even if you force something into a state of disequilibrium (low entropy/high energy), it is unstable and will revert to it's constituents at the earliest opportunity.

If a collection of atoms are exposed to an energy source and combine into more complex molecular structures are you saying that without a continual supply of energy they will break apart spontaneously? If so, that makes no sense as a general claim since it may require additional energy to break the bonds.

Quote:So those prebiotic life forms were in a state of disequilibrium, and then must have sought out energy to maintain their low entropy. That must have occurred according to the abiogenesis narrative.
Yes that is a violation of physics.

They did not "seek out" energy, energy was (and is) available from multiple sources. Nothing about the process violates physics in any way unless you disregard how things really work and insist on requiring a supernatural force behind every action. We're back to gravity not working unless angels hold you to the ground.

Quote:Reductionism will never be able to explain the emergence of self preservation.

Which is why you don't have the first clue about what you are talking about. You are the only one here pushing reductionism.

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
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: