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, 11:24 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:11 AM)u196533 Wrote:  If you were to analyze an amoeba as just a bunch of atoms, you would conclude that it would die and decompose.

Perhaps that's why amoebas aren't only analyzed as a bunch of atoms. Your singular focus on one idea would be funny if it weren't so sad.

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, 11:33 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:19 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:16 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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?

IMHO, the evidence clearly suggests that some unknown force is responsible for life. I see no other explanation for chemicals defying the entropic drive to equilibrium.
When there is a drive to decompose, I see no explanation for the organization to begin with. Only atoms in living systems exhibit that behavior.

The fact that it only seems to act on living organisms suggests that it is not some other force that has yet to be discovered.

The mind boggling complexity of life suggests intelligence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:35 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:24 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 11:11 AM)u196533 Wrote:  If you were to analyze an amoeba as just a bunch of atoms, you would conclude that it would die and decompose.

Perhaps that's why amoebas aren't only analyzed as a bunch of atoms. Your singular focus on one idea would be funny if it weren't so sad.

But according to you, amoebas ARE just a collection of atoms, and should behave just like all other collections of atoms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:39 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(26-07-2016 11:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 05:48 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. Chemical reactions in which energy is increased and entropy is decreased will not occur by themselves. Whenever that does occur, some outside influence was at work. That leaves the result in an unstable state which will decompose as soon as it's activation energy is obtained.
Consider ATP. It gets built up and is very unstable. It releases its energy ASAP. It does not take on additional energy and form into something even more unstable. But that is what have had to occur trillions of times during abiogenesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:41 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  The mind boggling complexity of life suggests intelligence.

In the past that logic was applied to weather, natural disasters and other phenomena.

Worst of all, even if that did indicate a creator being, there is still no indication that such a being would give a rat's ass about humanity.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:43 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?

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?

If an event violates that laws of science, then it is supernatural. That's kinda the definition.

That had to have happened according to the abiogenesis narrative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:44 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  The mind boggling complexity of life suggests intelligence.

Rolleyes So it boils down to "I can't believe it's anything else, therefore deity".

You talk of the mind-boggling complexity of life, are you aware that we have a fossil record right from very early cellular life to the present day? We can trace the development of complex organisms. There's no deity involved there. So essentially what you're saying is that your belief in a deity rests on your idea that somehow when we reduce things down to single cells a single cell is just waaay too complex to evolve by itself? Doesn't seem so very compelling.

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, 11:48 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 05:56 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(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.

You are just plain wrong. That's why I point you to Gibbs Free Energy. A reaction that increases energy and lowers entropy will not occur spontaneously. You can put the chemicals in a test tube, add activation energy and shake, but nothing will happen.
An outside influence has to be involved to force that to occur. The result in that case is an unstable system that will break down as soon as it reaches activation energy.

Atheism is based on reductionism whether you realize it or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 11:52 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  IMHO, the evidence clearly suggests that some unknown force is responsible for life. I see no other explanation for chemicals defying the entropic drive to equilibrium.

Your incredulity is not an argument.

(27-07-2016 11:35 AM)u196533 Wrote:  But according to you, amoebas ARE just a collection of atoms, and should behave just like all other collections of atoms.

No, I've said repeatedly that your reductionist approach is the problem. You're obviously too dense to understand what anybody is saying.

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
27-07-2016, 11:55 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:48 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Atheism is based on reductionism whether you realize it or not.

You do understand that atheism is not based on abiogenesis and evolution, right? If you could show that it did not happen the way it is currently outlined it would do absolutely nothing to support that a god was a better explanation. You would need to provide evidence for that. Saying that you don't see how it happened isn't carte blanche to make up magical solutions.

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: