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, 05:49 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 03:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 03:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Uh Yea they do. In any solution you have reactions that create and decompose chemical compounds. When they rate of formation = rate of decay, the solution is in equilibrium. All living things exist in a state FAR from equilibrium. If you place an ameoba in a sterile environment, it would decompose into a puddle.

I am talking about replicator molecules and other pre-biotic chemical systems that had no immune system. (btw- our immune systems does nothing to stop decay. The immune system attacks foreign organisms and substances.)

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-closer-rna.html

Do you really think this is earth shattering? A possible component of a subsystem or RNA that might have been available was found. Is this your proof that RNA has been demonstrated to form spontaneously.
I gave you one last chance out of curiosity, and you once again demonstrate that you don't really understand what you post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 06:05 PM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2016 06:08 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 05:49 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 03:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-closer-rna.html

Do you really think this is earth shattering? A possible component of a subsystem or RNA that might have been available was found. Is this your proof that RNA has been demonstrated to form spontaneously.
I gave you one last chance out of curiosity, and you once again demonstrate that you don't really understand what you post.

No it isn't, gramps. I didn't say that. I already gave you the proof from the Manchester Group. This is just more evidence that you're full of crap. The person who knows NOTHING about Biology is you, as you have demonstrated over and over. Again we note, you are totally incapable of actually discussing the actual chemistry.

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, 06:44 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 12:09 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I have degrees in engineering.

Oh Consider Which ones? NOT THAT IT MATTERS because not one of those listed below has anything to do with chemistry or biology.

Aerospace
Agricultural
Architectural
Biomedical
Biomechanical
Civil
Construction Environmental
Industrial
Engineering MBA
Computer
Electrical
Electronics
Eng. Technology
Management
Mechanical
Mechatronics
Project Mgmt
Robotics
Software
Structural

And by the way, you’re not the only person in these here parts with advanced degrees in one of the engineering fields, assuming you actually have one.

“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
29-07-2016, 07:02 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 12:17 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 09:20 AM)u196533 Wrote:  (first cause)

First class nosense, and you should know it.

Not 3rd. Not 5th. Not 70th. But exactly 1st cause.

How does he know? Because nobody knows, ergo as an ignorant and arrogant person, they can assign any cause to anything.

The fallacy of argument from ignorance has been pointed out ad-infinitum elsewhere on this thread.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 10:17 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 06:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 05:49 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Do you really think this is earth shattering? A possible component of a subsystem or RNA that might have been available was found. Is this your proof that RNA has been demonstrated to form spontaneously.
I gave you one last chance out of curiosity, and you once again demonstrate that you don't really understand what you post.

No it isn't, gramps. I didn't say that. I already gave you the proof from the Manchester Group. This is just more evidence that you're full of crap. The person who knows NOTHING about Biology is you, as you have demonstrated over and over. Again we note, you are totally incapable of actually discussing the actual chemistry.

The Manchester groups proposal has been debunked. Cyano-acetylene, one of their assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth could be considered a fantasy.

I would discuss the chemistry with you, but you are clearly incapable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 10:30 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 06:44 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 12:09 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I have degrees in engineering.

Oh Consider Which ones? NOT THAT IT MATTERS because not one of those listed below has anything to do with chemistry or biology.

Aerospace
Agricultural
Architectural
Biomedical
Biomechanical
Civil
Construction Environmental
Industrial
Engineering MBA
Computer
Electrical
Electronics
Eng. Technology
Management
Mechanical
Mechatronics
Project Mgmt
Robotics
Software
Structural

And by the way, you’re not the only person in these here parts with advanced degrees in one of the engineering fields, assuming you actually have one.

The ideas I have presented are from Chem 101. Rather than attack my argument, most of you have resorted to ad hominum attacks because you don't understand the basic fundamental principals that a smart high school student kid could quote. It isn't advanced stuff; it is basic chemistry applied to the abiogenesis narrative.
There are only one or two of you that actually seem to even understand my argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 12:30 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 10:17 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 06:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No it isn't, gramps. I didn't say that. I already gave you the proof from the Manchester Group. This is just more evidence that you're full of crap. The person who knows NOTHING about Biology is you, as you have demonstrated over and over. Again we note, you are totally incapable of actually discussing the actual chemistry.

The Manchester groups proposal has been debunked. Cyano-acetylene, one of their assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth could be considered a fantasy.

I would discuss the chemistry with you, but you are clearly incapable.

You are lying. It has not been "debunked". One scientist objected that the cyano-acetylene would not be present because of the reactions, and Dr. Sutherland explained that we actually have shown the presence of cyano-acetylene on Titan, and that it could have just as easily been present on the early earth.

You are quoting verbatim from this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/scienc....html?_r=0

I will bold the parts you plagiarized and then show the very next paragraph that proves your dishonesty:

Dr. Sutherland’s proposal has not convinced everyone. Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.” He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.”

Dr. Sutherland replied that the chemical is consumed fastest in the reaction he proposes, and that since it has been detected on Titan there is no reason it should not have been present on the early earth.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
30-07-2016, 12:33 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 02:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 12:15 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Therefore "creator"?
I used to believe in abiogenesis. The facts led to me to change my mind. Your faith is stronger than mine I guess.

Nice try.

I have no faith at all, i didnt make a claim at all about abiogenesis. You hovever did.
I dont know how live arose, but at least i dont say "magic" because i seem to see contradictory data and observations in nature at the moment. There is no reason at all to invoke the supernatural, or the Michaelson-Morley experiment would have been a good reason to invoke god, because it didnt match ether theory. If we had more "scientists" like you, relativity still would not have been discovered, man wouldnt have been on the moon and our space probes wouldnt be about to leave the solar system now.

To me this kind of answer of yours is a red flag. You seem to be a believer primarily and science is just a tool for you to shore up your belief, and that is intellectually dishonest.

Besides: you have faith?...and claim to be someone with a scientific background? Arent you embarassed at least a little bit? At least the thermodynamics guru in you should.

Well, im gonna refer to this in my next post.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 12:41 AM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2016 12:57 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 02:45 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 12:17 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  First class nosense, and you should know it.

Why is it nonsense to think that something caused or triggered the Big bang?

Because physical laws break down at the big bang, and we dont know if cause and effect still exist.

You didnt (only) say, "someting caused the big bang", you spoke about the "first cause", and that is a logical fallacy called "special pleading". Its very popular amongst theists. If you were so deeply involved both in believing and science as you are making us believe, then you would know this.

The intellectual honest answer is: "I don t know", and not "goddidit".

I dont know what game you are playing here.

- You seem educated in the field of thermodynamics, yet commit basic logic fallacies.
- You claim to have (several) degrees, but when some observation doesnt match up established theories, you conclude "creator". Every educated and intellectually honest scientist would be extremely happy to be able to do groundbreaking scientific work from this point on.
- You seem to (want to) use thermodynamics to shup up opposition rather than to encourage scientific discussion, which is unscientific again
- You claim to have a good scientific education but are claiming nonsense like different behaviour of atoms in living things, without bothering to define what life actually is or specifying this behaviour
- You are constantly anthropomorphing nature, which is again intellectually dishonest for someone with primary a scientific edcation, but not to a believer with a secondary, scientific background

You seem to be a very strange mixture of scientific education and complete ignorance. Maybe someone who was raised christian and took studies later, maybe you are a poe who pretends to be an ignorant believer with some basic scientific education. I dont know, at least not until you stop your silly games and tell us who and what you really are and what your motives are for coming here to impersonate a scientist by being completely unscientific on a grand scale.
If you really were a scientist and had some groundbreaking insight into the mechanics of abiogenesis, you would be either member of a research team spearheading science into new territory, or writing peer review articles in scientific journals, or at least you would be posting on a science website. But no, you came to an atheist website to "prove" life is supernatural, which clearly indicates your motives are belief and not science and inquiry.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
30-07-2016, 12:54 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 10:30 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The ideas I have presented are from Chem 101. Rather than attack my argument, most of you have resorted to ad hominum attacks because you don't understand the basic fundamental principals that a smart high school student kid could quote.

Its ad hominem, accussative, the preposition "ad" is a clear indication. Dont you have degrees in latin too? I have.
An ad hominem would be "its wrong, because you are stupid". We are saying "You are stupid, because its wrong". Thats not ad hominem. Yes we are attacking you, but because you seem to be dishonest in several ways. And we dont commit simple logic fallacies like you do.

Fallacies like
  • Special pleading
  • Argument from ignorance

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: