The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-07-2016, 09:27 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 09:25 AM)Bucky Ball 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.

Wrong.
You have in NO WAY proven there is anything to even call "supernatural". You don't know what happened. If spacetime began with the Big Bang, to say "before" time, is meaningless. (It is astounding that someone who claims to have your background doesn't even get that). 95 % of this universe is Dark Energy and Dark Matter. What goes on with, and are the properties of that, is unknown. You have no way to generalize about the entire universe, when all we know is 5 % of it.

You argument is an argument from ignorance ... a common street level fallacy, made by idiots.

The universe has been proven to be non-intuitive at it's most fundamental level. You have no evidence for any of your claims. They are all basically presumptions based on insufficient or no evidence, or complete ignorance.

Tell me again how the 2nd Law disproves evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 09:34 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 09:27 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 09:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Wrong.
You have in NO WAY proven there is anything to even call "supernatural". You don't know what happened. If spacetime began with the Big Bang, to say "before" time, is meaningless. (It is astounding that someone who claims to have your background doesn't even get that). 95 % of this universe is Dark Energy and Dark Matter. What goes on with, and are the properties of that, is unknown. You have no way to generalize about the entire universe, when all we know is 5 % of it.

You argument is an argument from ignorance ... a common street level fallacy, made by idiots.

The universe has been proven to be non-intuitive at it's most fundamental level. You have no evidence for any of your claims. They are all basically presumptions based on insufficient or no evidence, or complete ignorance.

Tell me again how the 2nd Law disproves evolution.

More deflection.
Thanks for repeatedly demonstrating you are totally out of your league here, and utterly fail to posses the capacity to deal with the subject.

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
29-07-2016, 09:37 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 09:20 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Science is inherently reductionistic. It cannot explain emergent properties.

We've been through that and you have not presented anything that convinces me that your position has any merit.

Quote:Do you really think it is reasonable to believe that a collection of chemicals could seek energy to lower entropy during abiogenesis when that behavior has NEVER been observed in an inanimate object.

No "seeking" is needed during abiogenesis. Energy is, and was, available for chemical reactions to occur. We observe chemical reactions occurring all the time and that's all that was required.

With more complex life we do see behaviors that simpler life and chemical replicators don't exhibit but nothing about any of it violates the laws of physics or appears to require any animism to explain it unless you presuppose a god.

Quote:On the other topic:
All of your alternatives require a trigger (first cause) for the Big bang. There is no getting around that.

Only if time existed prior to the event and if uncaused events can't happen. We don't know about the former and we have evidence for the latter in nuclear fission and quantum mechanics. You are also engaging in another category mistake by applying the laws that operate within the universe to the universe as a whole.

Even if I agreed to the idea of a "first cause" with respect to our universe I can not know anything about that cause except that it involved a lot of energy. It would remain an unknown until we learn more.

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
29-07-2016, 09:55 AM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2016 10:03 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 08:37 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 05:18 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Tomato/tomahto


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.


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


Citation required for "most" coming to that conclusion.


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


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.


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.

Yes self preservation must have arose. It is just overlooked because it cannot be explained naturally. In any given solution chemicals are combining and decomposing. When the rate of one equals the rate of the other, they have reached equilibrium.

When something is out of equilibrium there is a drive toward it. The further from equilibrium, the stronger the drive.
The transition from initial replicating molecule to life was a huge climb up a thermodynamic mountain. Those chemicals would become unstable and break down when they can. They do not keep absorbing energy and lowering entropy. Chemicals don't do that.
Living things exists FAR from equilibrium. If you look at any life form as a collection of chemicals, you would conclude we would just die and decompose. We maintain our low entropy due to our instinct for self preservation (the emergence of which has never been explained).
That could not happen naturally n simple pre-biotic chemical systems. Chemicals do not seek energy to lower entropy. That points to something that only acts on living things.

None of those other alternatives you presented are feasible to me. All of them hit a wall at some point. I see a creator as the most reasonable alternative.

(People are tuning to panspermia as a last ditched effort to cling to their beliefs. When I saw abiogenesis research being so harsh on it, I changed my views.)

It's "must have arisen", not "must have arose". Too bad you have no education.
Base Form: Arise
Past Simple: Arose
Past Participle: Arisen
3rd Person Singular: Arises
Present Participle/Gerund: Arising

Self preservation can be perfectly explained simply : (no one questions it except Creationist fools) +
Mutations that improved survivorship got passed on. It's really vey easy, (for most).
http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/biology.html

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
29-07-2016, 10:16 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Self preservation can be perfectly explained simply : (no one questions it except Creationist fools) +
Mutations that improved survivorship got passed on. It's really vey easy, (for most).
http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/biology.html

I disagree with portions of the article based on these excerpts.

Quote:To be successful as a species, the members of that species must have a desire to survive long enough to pass on their genes to offspring.

I do not believe bacterium, viruses, plankton, etc. have a "desire".

Quote:A phrase that has often been misquoted, "Survival of the Fittest," actually means survival of the fit. By fit, I mean an organism has those attributes that allow it to get the most out of its environment: gather food, drink, oxygen, rest, sex.

It does not have to get the "most out of its environment". It only needs what is necessary to survive and procreate.

The whole article seems to suggest an intent. There is no intent in evolution. Either it lives and passes on genes or it dies and does not pass on any genes.

I am not arguing your point, only your choice of article. Thumbsup

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 09:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 09:27 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Tell me again how the 2nd Law disproves evolution.

More deflection.
Thanks for repeatedly demonstrating you are totally out of your league here, and utterly fail to posses the capacity to deal with the subject.
No. You have sent me numerous posts and videos. I had the respect to read and consider them even amidst your ad hominum attacks. Their content indicated that you were just grabbing anything remotely related and posting it. All of the things you sent me indicated you don't understand the topic.
The last post about the 2nd Law refuting evolution was the last straw. While I don't agree with unfogged, technoman and some of the others, they appear to be intelligent and can form their own opinions, so I can respect them. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated you really are an idiot, and I don't respect you enough to respond thoughtfully anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 10:16 AM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Self preservation can be perfectly explained simply : (no one questions it except Creationist fools) +
Mutations that improved survivorship got passed on. It's really vey easy, (for most).
http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/biology.html

I disagree with portions of the article based on these excerpts.

Quote:To be successful as a species, the members of that species must have a desire to survive long enough to pass on their genes to offspring.

I do not believe bacterium, viruses, plankton, etc. have a "desire".

Quote:A phrase that has often been misquoted, "Survival of the Fittest," actually means survival of the fit. By fit, I mean an organism has those attributes that allow it to get the most out of its environment: gather food, drink, oxygen, rest, sex.

It does not have to get the "most out of its environment". It only needs what is necessary to survive and procreate.

The whole article seems to suggest an intent. There is no intent in evolution. Either it lives and passes on genes or it dies and does not pass on any genes.

I am not arguing your point, only your choice of article. Thumbsup

Great. Find a better one and post it.

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
29-07-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 10:28 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 09:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  More deflection.
Thanks for repeatedly demonstrating you are totally out of your league here, and utterly fail to posses the capacity to deal with the subject.
No. You have sent me numerous posts and videos. I had the respect to read and consider them even amidst your ad hominum attacks. Their content indicated that you were just grabbing anything remotely related and posting it. All of the things you sent me indicated you don't understand the topic.
The last post about the 2nd Law refuting evolution was the last straw. While I don't agree with unfogged, technoman and some of the others, they appear to be intelligent and can form their own opinions, so I can respect them. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated you really are an idiot, and I don't respect you enough to respond thoughtfully anymore.

No one cares what you think. All you did here, is JUMP to the most preposterous possibility ... "Oh, I don't get it, so it's *supernatural* ". THAT is the most unintelligent thing to post of all. You also are totally UNABLE to reply to the objections I had above, (concerning making conclusions from insufficient evidence). You have repeatedly stated THE most bizarre claims about atoms acting "differently" in living environments, proving you know nothing about what you are discussing. You have never once posted ONE piece of support for any of your bullshit claims. You have convinced no one of anything, (except that you are an ignoramus). You have not debunked one of the possible chemical pathways of Szostack, or the the fact that the Manchester group proved that what you claimed RNA could not do, did in fact happen, spontaneously. It's perfectly evident here, who the ignoramus is.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-07-2016, 10:38 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 10:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Great. Find a better one and post it.

link

"They think, therefore I am" - god
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 10:46 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 10:38 AM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 10:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Great. Find a better one and post it.

link

It says nothing about how self-preservation evolved.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: