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, 09:39 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 05:00 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(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'.
When that energy that was always there was concentrated into a single point prior to the Big Bang, that was the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo. That would be supernatural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 09:44 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]

No Energy is released. The energy loss offsets the entropy loss, so the reaction is spontaneous. This is not simply entropy/2nd Law. There is also the energy component that you are all overlooking. Just because energy is available, a reaction will not occur if the result is an increase in energy and a loss in entropy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 09:59 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

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.

Wow. If you had the intelligence to understand what you posted, you would know that the author argues that evolution DOES violate the 2nd Law.

You are truly so stupid, I can't even mock you anymore. That would be like taunting a special needs person
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 10:17 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 09:39 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 05:00 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  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'.
When that energy that was always there was concentrated into a single point prior to the Big Bang, that was the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo. That would be supernatural.

So you are saying that an infinite amount of energy was confined in an infinite amount of mass constricted to an infinitesimally small point of infinite density?

And even if so, where does the violation come in?

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 10:21 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 06:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 05:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

No. This is not my argument. I was not trying to say that life violates the 2nd Law of Thermo.

This author is a clueless mathematician that applies the Boltzman concept of statistical entropy to physical systems. He even uses the equations associated with the classical definition of the 2nd Law (energy dispersion) versus the Boltzman equation, and then goes on to state entropy is all about probability. He's clueless.

The Boltzman statistical definition of entropy was developed and is valid for information systems. It is arguable whether it applies to physical systems.

When you are discussing a physical system stick with the classical definition. It is mathematically proven (therefore irrefutable), and it is easier to conceptualize. Simply put, the energy in ANY system will disperse as much as possible within the system. Heat moves from hot to cold until everything is the same temperature. Batteries discharge until all of the electrons are evenly distributed. Chemical energy in dispersed when hydrocarbons burn. Just about every machine is based on taking concentrated energy, allowing it to disperse, then harnessing that dispersal to do work. Oh by the way, when the energy is dispersed, some of it is transformed into something that can no longer be re-purposed for work. (noise, friction, heat loss etc.) The unusable energy is defined as entropy.

The key concept is energy dispersing. If you think in those terms, it is a simple concept to visualize in any system. The confusion stems from the fact the the person who first described it wanted to show that since no machine is 100% efficient (entropy is created by all machines) a perpetual motion machine is impossible. So he phrased it in terms of entropy which confuses people. But the fundamental concept is really that energy disperses from concentrated sources.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 10:25 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 09:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 05:14 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  I am thinking ... snowflakes.

[Image: a123199.gif]

No Energy is released.

Wrong! Try again?

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 11:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
At work.

Am not sure if it has been addressed.

I think U196533 is still confusing 'Beginning of universe' with 'Abiogenisis'.

Could U196533 perhaps restate thier point again? For clarification?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 04:02 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 08:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am thinking flaky pie crust.

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

I'm thinking rust flakes
[Image: rust-flakes-free-16727297-l.jpg]

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 05:26 AM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2016 05:40 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 09:59 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 05:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not because you ... a fool, say so.
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf


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.

Wow. If you had the intelligence to understand what you posted, you would know that the author argues that evolution DOES violate the 2nd Law.

You are truly so stupid, I can't even mock you anymore. That would be like taunting a special needs person

Except you haven't debunked ONE thing I said. Calling people names is no argument gramps. The group from Manchester PROVED what you claim can't happen, DID happen. NOT ONE person here has been convinced by your theist crap. You also have been totally non-specific with your replies. I doubt you even know what you are reading. You are a fool, and you prove it with every post. You said atoms act differently in biological systems. NOT ONE real scientist in the entire world says that. You are a total ignoramus. You are so non-creative, all you can do is say is "I don't have an explanation for this, so a god must have done it". You try to invoke science, yet say "Oh, it has to be supernatural". You have never proven that anything "supernatural" even exists to invoke in the first place. AND you are so fucking ignorant of religion that you think your fool argument proves something. If that were the case, faith would be unnecessary, and you would be the first theist in the universe to claim that you know know something about your fool deity, and need no faith. What a complete idiot.

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
29-07-2016, 07:52 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(28-07-2016 10:17 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 09:39 PM)u196533 Wrote:  When that energy that was always there was concentrated into a single point prior to the Big Bang, that was the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo. That would be supernatural.

So you are saying that an infinite amount of energy was confined in an infinite amount of mass constricted to an infinitesimally small point of infinite density?

And even if so, where does the violation come in?

The 2nd Law states energy will disperse as much as possible. Energy/heat always move from concentrated areas and disperse. Heat moves from hot to cold. Batteries discharge until all of the electrons are equally distributed. Energy will never become concentrated by itself without an outside influence. (E.g. You need to charge a battery.) So concentrating all of the energy into one point would be the ultimate violation of the 2nd Law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: