The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 08:38 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Hello again U196533. Big Grin

I think it has been asked before but can you please point to the differance between an atom within something that is 'Alive' and something that is 'Dead'?

Looking forwards to our exchange. Thumbsup

There is no difference in the atoms. However, when they are assembled into a living organism they seek energy in order to lower entropy in an act of self preservation. However, if you look at them as purely a collection of atoms, you would conclude that the collection would just decompose into their constituent atoms. When a hurricane runs out of warm water, it does not change course to find energy. That is how they behave differently.
You can hand wave over that in a sentient being as self-preservation, but science will never be able to explain that behavior during abiogenesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:01 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 08:38 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Hello again U196533. Big Grin

I think it has been asked before but can you please point to the differance between an atom within something that is 'Alive' and something that is 'Dead'?

Looking forwards to our exchange. Thumbsup

There is no difference in the atoms. However, when they are assembled into a living organism they seek energy in order to lower entropy in an act of self preservation. However, if you look at them as purely a collection of atoms, you would conclude that the collection would just decompose into their constituent atoms. When a hurricane runs out of warm water, it does not change course to find energy. That is how they behave differently.
You can hand wave over that in a sentient being as self-preservation, but science will never be able to explain that behavior during abiogenesis.

"Hand-wave"??? Hand Wave What the fuck do you call your unbearable drivel? "Science will never be able to explain"? Fuck right the fuck off. You idiot. I'll tell you one thing science won't be able to explain. How the fuck you can still type with your head so far up your rectum.

For fuck's sake. I mean for FUCK'S sake. Facepalm Jesus FUCKING Christ on a dildo.

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, 11:07 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 10:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

1. The 2nd Law of Thermo applies to ALL systems. That argument has already been debunked in this thread.
2. This is not an argument based solely on thermodynamics. It is chemical thermodynamics. A chemical reaction will not occur spontaneously if the system increases energy and lowers entropy. You can put them in a test tube add activation energy and shake it up all you want, but they will not react by themselves.
Whenever a reaction like that does occur, something external was at play. The result is a system in an unstable state that will break down as soon as it reaches activation energy.
3. I think the argument applies to all living things. However, it can be rationalized in a sentient being as self preservation or you can do some hand waving about DNA in simpler things. However, that behavior can't be explained during abiogenesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:11 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:01 AM)u196533 Wrote:  There is no difference in the atoms. However, when they are assembled into a living organism they seek energy in order to lower entropy in an act of self preservation. However, if you look at them as purely a collection of atoms, you would conclude that the collection would just decompose into their constituent atoms. When a hurricane runs out of warm water, it does not change course to find energy. That is how they behave differently.
You can hand wave over that in a sentient being as self-preservation, but science will never be able to explain that behavior during abiogenesis.

"Hand-wave"??? Hand Wave What the fuck do you call your unbearable drivel? "Science will never be able to explain"? Fuck right the fuck off. You idiot. I'll tell you one thing science won't be able to explain. How the fuck you can still type with your head so far up your rectum.

For fuck's sake. I mean for FUCK'S sake. Facepalm Jesus FUCKING Christ on a dildo.

If you were to analyze an amoeba as just a bunch of atoms, you would conclude that it would die and decompose. You would never predict that it would eat the food next to it in order to increase it energy and lower its entropy. Inanimate chemicals don't do that.
Why doesn't the amoeba just die and decompose as any other chemical system would.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 10:48 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 02:10 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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?

I don't pray to a personal God, but I acknowledge a Creator.
It is logical to assume that whatever Created the universe and the laws of Physics exists outside of the universe, and is not constrained by the laws of Physics within our universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:17 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:01 AM)u196533 Wrote:  There is no difference in the atoms. However, when they are assembled into a living organism they seek energy in order to lower entropy in an act of self preservation.

No, the organism has behaviors that the individual atoms do not. Stop conflating levels.

Quote:However, if you look at them as purely a collection of atoms, you would conclude that the collection would just decompose into their constituent atoms.

Back to reductionsim.... Looking at them as purely a collection of atoms is not the only approach and the fact that you can't explain everything through that lens is meaningless.

Quote:When a hurricane runs out of warm water, it does not change course to find energy. That is how they behave differently.

Right, hurricanes are not the same kind of complex system that a living organism is. You have successfully proved that living things can have more complex behaviors than non-living things.

Quote:You can hand wave over that in a sentient being as self-preservation, but science will never be able to explain that behavior during abiogenesis.

Good thing that isn't what is claimed.

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
27-07-2016, 11:18 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:11 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  "Hand-wave"??? Hand Wave What the fuck do you call your unbearable drivel? "Science will never be able to explain"? Fuck right the fuck off. You idiot. I'll tell you one thing science won't be able to explain. How the fuck you can still type with your head so far up your rectum.

For fuck's sake. I mean for FUCK'S sake. Facepalm Jesus FUCKING Christ on a dildo.

If you were to analyze an amoeba as just a bunch of atoms, you would conclude that it would die and decompose. You would never predict that it would eat the food next to it in order to increase it energy and lower its entropy. Inanimate chemicals don't do that.
Why doesn't the amoeba just die and decompose as any other chemical system would.

Why the fuck would I conclude anything other than "I don't know" ? Also for the 3rd time of asking, if you allege deity involvement please specify the nature of the said deity. If it's nature is simply "makes life and fucks off", how is that different from "I will give a special name to the fact that I don't know". If you have more specific knowledge of your hypothetical life-kicking-off deity, please specify how you obtained that knowledge.

And no one's impressed with your pseudo-intellectual posturing. If you had anything half substantial you'd publish and you'd be lionized by the entire loony religious population of the world. Note that when I say publish I mean in a genuine science journal, not some half-baked crappy religious-run journal.

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
27-07-2016, 11:19 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:16 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 10:48 PM)morondog Wrote:  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?

I don't pray to a personal God, but I acknowledge a Creator.
It is logical to assume that whatever Created the universe and the laws of Physics exists outside of the universe, and is not constrained by the laws of Physics within our universe.

How is that anything other than code for "I don't know" then?

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
27-07-2016, 11:20 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 08:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 08:03 PM)u196533 Wrote:  My argument is based on chemistry and thermodynamics.
Fact: All things, except living things, tend toward lower energy and higher entropy.
Fact: All livng things exist in a state for from equilibrium
Fact: Living things seek energy to lower entropy
Fact: Inanimate objects do not.
If you believe in natural abiogenesis, you must accept this as a fact: Somewhere in the process of abiogenesis, those chemical systems must have sought out energy in an act of self preservation in order to survive.

The fact that you haven't heard the argument does not invalidate it. It says more about you.

What is says, is that you're desperate to make people believe in your imaginary friend.
You're full of shit "u". Your garbage has been debunked. You're making a fundmental error about closed systems. You never wrote a book on thermodynamics. No one who did would make such a simple error.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21737/
http://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcon...xt=philfac
http://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a...y-of-life/
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03...e-entropy/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3ShyXSHsbc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBITz7WE6WE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rAeZqEckNU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fal_M1z_v8
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-u...termediate
http://biologos.org/common-questions/sci...second-law
http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misu...use-second
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evol...namics.php
http://2ndlaw.oxy.edu/evolution.html
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/t...namics.htm
http://www.physicsforums.com/threads/evo...cs.261129/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...173205.htm

I never said I wrote a book on Thermodynamics. I did take classes though. You are just plain wrong about entropy only applying to closed systems. I thought we had already established that earlier in the thread. (Please go back and read my car example. Add gas to make it an open system and the 2nd Law still applies. Or read up on the Krebbs cycle which is a good example of the 2nd Law at work in an open system. Other people on the thread who clearly know more than you acknowledge that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:22 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:07 AM)u196533 Wrote:  1. The 2nd Law of Thermo applies to ALL systems. That argument has already been debunked in this thread.

Yes, it does, but entropy can decrease locally where energy is supplied.

Quote:2. This is not an argument based solely on thermodynamics. It is chemical thermodynamics. A chemical reaction will not occur spontaneously if the system increases energy and lowers entropy. You can put them in a test tube add activation energy and shake it up all you want, but they will not react by themselves.
Whenever a reaction like that does occur, something external was at play. The result is a system in an unstable state that will break down as soon as it reaches activation energy.

Facepalm
Asserting that again doesn't make it any more true.

Quote:3. I think the argument applies to all living things. However, it can be rationalized in a sentient being as self preservation or you can do some hand waving about DNA in simpler things. However, that behavior can't be explained during abiogenesis.

Facepalm

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: