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, 04:34 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 09:11 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Also your link is written by an idiot that does not understand thermodynamics. http://biologos.org/common-questions/sci...second-law
A quote from the link is a perfect example of why you should not get "science" from the internet.: "The answer is that the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy. Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply."

This is complete nonsense written by an idiot. The second law applies to ALL systems.

However, his overall conclusion is correct. The argument that the 2nd Law disproves evolution is stupid. So the author is right, but for the wrong reason.

The reason is that the 2nd Law states that the entropy of the UNIVERSE must increase. Since the earth is an open system it takes in energy and disperses that energy per the 2nd Law. Entropy can be increased locally provided that there is a greater reduction in entropy somewhere else so that overall, the entropy of the universe increases.

You continue to look like an idiot when you cannot argue in your own words and have to send me links from the internet. Then the links you provide appear to be written by high school kids.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 05:00 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 04:18 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Since the laws of our universe state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is logical to conclude that something outside our universe created it and put it here.

I define our universe as the space-time put into motion by the Big Bang.

So, your assumption is that "goddidit" and my assumption is that it was always there. My assumption follows the 'Law of the Conservation of Energy'.

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 05:14 PM
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.

I am thinking ... snowflakes.

[Image: a123199.gif]

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TechnoMonkey's post
28-07-2016, 05:18 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 03:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Reductionism is not a tool. It is a methodology/philosophy.

Tomato/tomahto

Quote: The scientific method is reductionistic by nature.
I absolutely understand that a purely reductionist approach can't always answer all questions. Science has it's limitations. Then you state science is the only path to knowledge. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

I did not state that. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I said that it is the best method we have for determining what is real. Even if I accepted that it was the only tool that doesn't conflict with it not being able to answer all questions. You fail at basic logic and it shows in all your arguments.

Quote:Yes I understand panspermia just kicks the abiogenesis question down the road. (actual to outer space)

Then why do you claim that people are turning to it because of the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis?

Quote:Do you not understand that just highlights the desperation and hypocrisy? Most have largely come to the conclusion that it could not have happened on earth.

Citation required for "most" coming to that conclusion.

Quote: But rather than acting like scientists and allowing the data to drive the conclusion, they clinging to an a priori conclusion and start looking in outer space. That enables them to keep the illusion alive knowing that it can't be dis-proven in their lifetimes. (Kinda sad actually)

You mean like looking for a god when you run into something you don't understand?

Quote:Since the laws of our universe state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is logical to conclude that something outside our universe created it and put it here.

or that it always existed...
or that the 'something from nothing' arguments have merit...
or that we don't yet understand all the laws of physics...
Before you misrepresent my words again, I am not claiming any of those. I am simply stating that when we get to something we don't understand it is irrational to assume an answer, especially when that answer is a god that we have no actual evidence for. Maybe there is something "outside" and it is part of some kind of multiverse... whatever the answer is you have zero justification for just assuming anything that falls into the god category.

Quote:My argument is not incredulity. I have presented an argument that according to the narrative of abiogenesis, simple pre-biotic chemical systems would have had to exhibit self-preservation. I do not accept that could have happened naturally.

Which is a textbook argument from incredulity. No self-preservation is necessary; chemicals combine and those combinations can persist if nothing tears them apart. Your view that things spontaneously decompose but never combine is just wrong.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
28-07-2016, 05:22 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 04:34 PM)u196533 Wrote:  This is complete nonsense written by an idiot. The second law applies to ALL systems.

Not because you ... a fool, say so.
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf

Quote:Then the links you provide appear to be written by high school kids.

But they're not high school kids, gramps, and YOU are not a Nobel laureate. You are a fool who doesn't even know what he's arguing about. The English lab proved what you claim can't happen, did happen with RNA. You are unable to actually disprove the actual argument, so you continue to deflect and blab around it.

You have succeeded in convincing NO ONE of your garbage.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-07-2016, 06:02 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 05:14 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(27-07-2016 06:53 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Biological systems DO take on energy in order to reduce entropy. Non-biological systems do not.

I am thinking ... snowflakes.

[Image: a123199.gif]

I am thinking corn flakes.

[Image: kelloggs-cornflakes.jpg]

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
28-07-2016, 06:53 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 05:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 04:34 PM)u196533 Wrote:  This is complete nonsense written by an idiot. The second law applies to ALL systems.

Not because you ... a fool, say so.
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
OK, sorry to point this out Bucky, but that link you provided supports u196533's case rather than yours.
The author has a unique view (a flawed one) but the author writes
Quote:In my 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article, ‘‘A Mathematician’s View of Evolution’’, I argued against this view, asserting that the increase in order which has occurred on Earth seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way

And his conclusion continues on that path
Quote:Of course, one can still argue that the spectacular increase in order seen on Earth does not violate the second law because what has happened here is not really extremely improbable. Not many people are willing to make this argument, however; in fact, the claim that the second law does not apply to open systems was invented in an attempt to avoid having to make this argument. And perhaps it only seems extremely improbable, but really is not, that, under the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves in to nuclear power plants and spaceships and digital computers. But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law of thermodynamics, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we are not.
The guy argues about entropy being a statistical thing. Which in many ways it is.

If we consider a box with a line drawn down the middle, we place 6 red marbles and 6 blue marbles in the box, put the lid on, shake it and then take the lid off an observe where the marbles are. If we found 6 red marbles in the left half and 6 blue marbles in the right half we might consider that to be ordered, because we see a pattern. From a statistical analysis there is a low chance of this configuration in comparison to the full set of all possible configurations. It's not an impossible outcome. It doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But if you opened the box and saw six red on the left and six blue on the right, you'd probably smile and think wow, that was unlikely. Now if we had only 1 red and 1 blue then it isn't much of a stretch to get the red marble on the left and the blue marble on the right. No Wow moment. I would be wow with the 6 and 6 configuration. If we had a thousand reds and a thousand blues and randomly got this seperation, it really would be a highly unlikely scenario, but still not impossible. Still, no violation of 2nd law.

We could say that me shaking the box is an external source of energy (which it is). My shaking of the box doesn't introduce order inside the box, but it does introduce movement. It randomly alters the internal configuration. If I shake it and take a look enough times, then eventually we might get this red/blue seperation. If the box remains unshaken then we won't because we won't get movement and change.

The thing about life, is that it is not random. There is a filter whereby those able to replicate will proliferate and those not able will disappear. so that improves the odds greatly that complex life forms will evolve.
With regards to pre-life forms, it is possible the same thing applies. At some point there was a chemical structure which could increase the likelihood of other chemical structures forming. At some point there were self replicating structures and from there on life was inevitable.

For replication to occur, there needs to be a source of energy to fuel it and that energy is our sun. The sun does not bring order, it merely brings energy and with it change. Self replication and competition for limited resources brings order. But because we are inefficient at using all the energy that we intake there is always wasted energy. Only a very, very small amount of the Sun's energy is effective in all the order on Earth. the order we see on Earth pales in comparison to the amount of energy the sun has given off over the past 4 billion years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
28-07-2016, 08:39 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 03:13 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(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.

That was not the point; they exhibit a high degree of order.

Quote:Yes science IS only reductionistic.

No, we look at things at appropriate levels. We don't do chemistry by reducing it to quantum physics; we don't do biology by reducing it to chemistry, and so on.

Quote:Please do some research.
You claim thermodynamics only apply to isolated systems.

No. I have made no such claim.

Quote:You don't know what a spontaneous reaction is.

Really? What makes you think that?

Quote:You don't know what activation energy is.

Actually, I asked you to find out if you knew because you completely misuse the term. Drinking Beverage

Quote:You don't know what reductionism is.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Quote:Then you call me ignorant. Facepalm

You are ignorant and misguided. Your understanding of the terms and the science is warped.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
28-07-2016, 08:42 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 03:17 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

No, they don't. It's just chemistry. That is all that is required for self-replicating molecules.

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
28-07-2016, 08:47 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 06:02 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 05:14 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  I am thinking ... snowflakes.

[Image: a123199.gif]

I am thinking corn flakes.

[Image: kelloggs-cornflakes.jpg]

I am thinking flaky pie crust.

[Image: 20110629-food-lab-pie-crust-06.jpg]

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: