The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2016, 12:47 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 10:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

Your claim to understanding entropy has been debunked.
You don't understand the difference between closed and open systems.
Which is like, if you don't get that you can't be much beyond *grade school* level in terms of your understanding of thermo. No matter how many times you try to seem smart (u196533, not Chas) by throwing around words like "Gibbs free energy". They're not magic words that will make us suddenly believe you. We believe scientists who use them because they know what they're talking about and can demonstrate it by referencing published papers and showing their derivations when challenged. You use it to attempt shut down dissent. Unlike Harry Potter, magic words in the wrong hands are completely powerless. I suggest you talk about Oompa Loompas instead. It makes explicit your lack of knowledge.

Quote:I suggest you never attempt to synthesize nitroglycerin. Drinking Beverage
Aw, c'mon Chas, where's your sense of fun? Dodgy

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
28-07-2016, 08:40 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 04:23 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Science and atheism are inherently reductionistic. Either you are a materialist that believes everything can be explained via science, or you are not. You can't have it both ways.

Reductionism is one tool used in science. It is not the only one. The fact that you can't seem to get beyond it is your problem, not science's problem.

Atheism is not dependent on any of the things you've been arguing. It is simply the recognition that no good evidence FOR a god has been presented. You continue this with your incredibly stupid argument from personal incredulity.

I have not claimed that everything can be explained by science. I do not know if that is true or not. What I believe is that it is far and away the best tool we have for learning what is actually real. Where science does not yet have an answer I stop at "we don't know" because no other way of determining truth has been proven to be reliable.

(27-07-2016 04:32 PM)u196533 Wrote:  So are you acknowledging that there is an unknown force or law of science that only acts on living things?

Absolutely nothing in my response indicates that in any way. I said that if we find something that appears to violate the laws of physics as we understand them then it means we have something new to investigate.

You have not even come close to showing anything that operates only on living things. You have only demonstrated that you do not understand how to apply the laws of thermodynamics and that you do not understand that a purely reductionist approach can't always answer all questions.

The idea that living things "seek energy" can't be explained at the level of individual atoms but that does not mean that those individual atoms behave differently in living vs non-living things. Your on-going category mistake is also your problem and not science's.

(27-07-2016 04:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  People are actually taking panspermia seriously because abiogenssis is dead in the water.

Facepalm
That may be one of the stupidest claims that you have proposed. Free clue: panspermia is not an alternative to the idea of abiogenesis, only the location and timing of it.

(27-07-2016 04:52 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The obvious flaw in your reasoning is it assumes that our known universe is all that there is in existence. Nobody has any evidence either way.

Which is why it makes no sense to believe there is anything else or to assign properties or actions to it.

Quote:However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

So you're argument is that since energy can't be created it must have a creator.

Not sure whether to Facepalm or Laughat at this point. Maybe both.

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
28-07-2016, 09:11 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 06:53 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Biological systems DO take on energy in order to reduce entropy. Non-biological systems do not.

Yes they do, and you FAIL to understand the difference and the general context.
http://biologos.org/common-questions/sci...second-law

Quote:Self preservation cannot be invoked during abiogenesis.

That is a red herring. Organisms LEARN and evolve.
You do not understand Biology, AND you are making a complete fool of yourself.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-07-2016, 09:13 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 08:40 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 04:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  People are actually taking panspermia seriously because abiogenssis is dead in the water.

Facepalm
That may be one of the stupidest claims that you have proposed. Free clue: panspermia is not an alternative to the idea of abiogenesis, only the location and timing of it.

But he is a science guy! Are you saying he doesn’t understand that if life first arose somewhere other than here then seeded Earth it doesn’t answer abiogenesis and the question remains? Shocking!

(28-07-2016 08:40 AM)‘unfogged’ Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 04:52 PM)u196533 Wrote:  However, the 1st Law of Thermo states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to think that something created the energy in our universe.

So you're argument is that since energy can't be created it must have a creator.

Not sure whether to Facepalm or Laughat at this point. Maybe both.

The correct answer is, ‘Why not both”.

Turtles all the way down. [Image: TurtlesAlltheWay.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
28-07-2016, 03:08 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 10:26 PM)ClydeLee 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.

Because there are emergent properties at the population level of community organisms as well as other levels across biology.

I'm just not sure where you still are coming from with your omniscience levels of knowledge claims.

Yes there are emergent properties in biology. Science cannot predict or explain them. That is the weakness of science. It doesn't take omniscience to see that reductionism and emergence don't mix.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 03:09 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 10:27 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 09:47 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

Sorry, that would mean we would have to quote stuff from the internet or even, gasp, books.
Go ahead. Reference whatever you want to show how science can explain how those emergent properties arose. Good luck.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 03:13 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 12:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  Crystals exhibit a high degree of order, therefore lower entropy.


Science is not only reductionist - that is a gross over-simplification.

Energy is released in the formation of crystals. That is why they form spontaneously.
Yes science IS only reductionistic.

Please do some research.
You claim thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems.
You don't know what a spontaneous reaction is.
You don't know what activation energy is.
You don't know what reductionism is.

Then you call me ignorant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 03:17 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 12:10 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 04:45 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I have no idea why living things maintain lower entropy. The fact that only living things do points to some unknown force that only acts on living things. Life is an emergent property. Science, being reductionistic, can't explain it.

I am asking you lots and lots of very specific questions, and this is all you have?

Quote:I have no idea


You dont even acknowledge that your claims are incoherent as i have pointed out in my post? You dont even care about that?

So, please tell me why
Quote:I have no idea why living things maintain lower entropy.
convinces you of a "creator". Facepalm

You are the poster child for a huuuuuuuuuuuge argument from ignorance, and a bad one at that, because regarding that what you cant explain: It either can be explained or your calims are wrong as we have seen.

You cherry pick indicvidual statements and ignore the crux on my argument.
According to the narrative of abiogenesis, simple, pre-biotic chemical systems would have had to exhibit self -preservation. I reject the idea that could happen naturally as most reasonable folks would.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 03:19 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(27-07-2016 10:25 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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

I don't see how computer programs or computer networking have anything to do with abiogenesis or emergent properties, the current topics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 03:22 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 12:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 10:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your claim to understanding entropy has been debunked.
You don't understand the difference between closed and open systems.
Which is like, if you don't get that you can't be much beyond *grade school* level in terms of your understanding of thermo. No matter how many times you try to seem smart (u196533, not Chas) by throwing around words like "Gibbs free energy". They're not magic words that will make us suddenly believe you. We believe scientists who use them because they know what they're talking about and can demonstrate it by referencing published papers and showing their derivations when challenged. You use it to attempt shut down dissent. Unlike Harry Potter, magic words in the wrong hands are completely powerless. I suggest you talk about Oompa Loompas instead. It makes explicit your lack of knowledge.

Quote:I suggest you never attempt to synthesize nitroglycerin. Drinking Beverage
Aw, c'mon Chas, where's your sense of fun? Dodgy

No I point you toward the Gibbs Free Energy equation to educate you on the fundamental concepts of chemistry on which my argument is based. I should not need to reference papers to establish a proven, well understood fundamental concept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: