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, 08:05 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
At work.

(27-07-2016 06:54 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 06:39 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Never is a long time.

So your answer to as yet explained processes is fairy dust? You certainly don’t sound like any man of science I’ve ever met. No, you are quite happy in your ignorance and wish to remain so.

"[In response to the view beholden by some religious people that God is the cause of various inexplicable events...] If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on. So, just be ready for that to happen, if that's how you want to come at the problem. So that’s just simply the God of the gaps argument.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

As to your pot shot of accusing me of getting my information from the internet, well I suppose I could have also been accused of getting my information from books a few short decades ago. Gasp

Facepalm
Science cannot explain emergent properties. Never has. Never will.

Um... I'm pretty sure neuro-scientists and entomologist would/will disagree with you on that point. Just to name a couple.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 08:11 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 06:01 PM)u196533 Wrote:  As a man of science I understand it's limitations. It is reductionistic by nature. It cannot explain emergent properties such as self preservation, consciousness or life. Not now. Not ever.
Science is awesome, but it cannot explain everything..

You're not "a man of science".
Science can explain behavior (self-preservation), and consciousness, and life. You just don't know how it's done, as you went to school decades ago, and lost touch with current science years and years ago.

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
27-07-2016, 09:47 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 08:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 06:01 PM)u196533 Wrote:  As a man of science I understand it's limitations. It is reductionistic by nature. It cannot explain emergent properties such as self preservation, consciousness or life. Not now. Not ever.
Science is awesome, but it cannot explain everything..

You're not "a man of science".
Science can explain behavior (self-preservation), and consciousness, and life. You just don't know how it's done, as you went to school decades ago, and lost touch with current science years and years ago.

Explain it. Just start with self preservation. It is not even in the literature associated with evolution. Not why self preservation arose since that is obvious. HOW.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 09:51 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 08:05 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(27-07-2016 06:54 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Science cannot explain emergent properties. Never has. Never will.

Um... I'm pretty sure neuro-scientists and entomologist would/will disagree with you on that point. Just to name a couple.

Thumbsup

Neuro scientists cannot explain how a brain created thoughts. I don't understand where you are going with entomologist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 10:02 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 06:59 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 06:11 PM)u196533 Wrote:  As soon as someone tells me that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems, I know they got their "science" from the internet.

So. You are smarter and/or more knowledgeable than the folks at NASA?

Then, in the same breath, you criticize us for getting science "from the internet" while you lecture us about SCIENCE on the INTERNET.

Exactly how fucking stupid are you???

The article FullCircle referenced is accurate. However, he made a statement in his post that it applied to isolated systems. The reason that is a common misunderstanding for folk who never actually studied it is that the definition of entropy often involves an equation for calculating it. In order to calculate the energy that is no longer usable after a given process, you have to know how much energy you started with. Therefore you need to have an isolated system to MEASURE the change in entropy of a given reaction. You can't do that is you are adding/removing energy while you are trying to measure the change in Joules/Kelvin.
However, the 2nd Laws of Thermo still applies to ALL systems. The energy in any system will disperse as much as possible in ALL systems, and in that process the entropy of the universe will increase.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 10:07 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 09:51 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 08:05 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.


Um... I'm pretty sure neuro-scientists and entomologist would/will disagree with you on that point. Just to name a couple.

Thumbsup

Neuro scientists cannot explain how a brain created thoughts. I don't understand where you are going with entomologist.

At work.

(O_o)

Surely you jest? Or perhaps misspoke?

Neurologists currently do know how neurons work to creat thoughts.

Perhaps you are intimating that there is no clear path in the evolution of 'Brain' like development? Consider

My comment about entomologists pointed out/to the emergent complex behaviour of social insects.

Something that has evolved at least three different times.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 10:14 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 10:07 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 09:51 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Neuro scientists cannot explain how a brain created thoughts. I don't understand where you are going with entomologist.

At work.

(O_o)

Surely you jest? Or perhaps misspoke?

Neurologists currently do know how neurons work to creat thoughts.

Perhaps you are intimating that there is no clear path in the evolution of 'Brain' like development? Consider

My comment about entomologists pointed out/to the emergent complex behaviour of social insects.
Something that has evolved at least three different times.

Thumbsup
Not true. They cannot look at a brain/neural network and explain HOW/WHY a mind emerged from the constituents.

Similarly entomologists can describe complex behavior, but could not predict it from looking at individuals and surmising behavior of a large group.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 10:17 PM
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.

And that would be them behaving differently. Facepalm But they don't.

Your nonsense is incoherent. There is no evidence for it.

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.

Only if you were utterly ignorant of chemistry. Drinking Beverage

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

Hurricanes are not comparable in any important way to organisms.

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.

Sentient being? Is an amoeba sentient?

Your ignorance of chemistry is a poor basis for, well, anything.

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
27-07-2016, 10:21 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 11:07 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 10:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.
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.

Your claim to understanding entropy has been debunked.
You don't understand the difference between closed and open systems.

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.

If energy is added it most certainly will.

Quote: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.

I suggest you never attempt to synthesize nitroglycerin. Drinking Beverage

Quote: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.

What is "activation energy"?

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.

There is no firm line between self-replicating molecules and life.

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
27-07-2016, 10:25 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
At work.

Thence, by the above comments, you would seem to have a problem with both computer programs as well as computer networking?

Or do you find the intelligent design of such equipment sufficient explanation?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: