The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2016, 02:41 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. The things I have proposed are not advanced concepts. I learned them as an undergrad. I took the basic concept that chemicals drive to lower energy and increase entropy, and applied it to the narrative of abiogenesis.

Science, like karate, you either do or you don't do. If you think you know enough and have come up with your own story, sooner or later you get squished like a grape.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 05:45 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 05:30 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  You have yet to address my snowflake.

Energy is expended and absorbed in the process of 'building' a symmetrically organized inanimate structure. All done without brains, senses, awareness, choice, sex, drugs or rock 'n' roll.

I think I did. It is clearly exothermic for the obvious reason that liquid water has more energy than ice.

u196533 Wrote:I have degrees in engineering. The things I have proposed are not advanced concepts. I learned them as an undergrad. I took the basic concept that chemicals drive to lower energy and increase entropy, and applied it to the narrative of abiogenesis.

(my bold)

The entropy of the forming snowflake is decreasing.

"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
04-08-2016, 09:41 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-07-2016 03:10 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 05:45 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I think I did. It is clearly exothermic for the obvious reason that liquid water has more energy than ice.

u196533 Wrote:I have degrees in engineering. The things I have proposed are not advanced concepts. I learned them as an undergrad. I took the basic concept that chemicals drive to lower energy and increase entropy, and applied it to the narrative of abiogenesis.

(my bold)

The entropy of the forming snowflake is decreasing.
No shit. As I have stated several times previously in this thread, these two drives are often competing. If a reaction lowers energy and increases entropy it will occur spontaneously without question (think bomb.) If one lowers energy but also lowers entropy, the loss in energy must offset the loss in entropy. That is what occurs in crystal formation.

If a reaction lowers entropy AND increases energy, it will not happen spontaneously. Some outside influence must be acting to force it to occur.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 09:45 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-07-2016 08:57 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 08:02 AM)u196533 Wrote:  I used to work for Baxter a Pharmaeutical company. I used to debate this with all of the chemists during lunch.

This is Chem 101. It isn't rocket science.

As far as I'm concerned the posters here have refuted your ideas. When accredited scientific journals publish your work and it passes peer review, then we will have something to talk about.

These people do not even grasp my ideas so how could they refute them? This is a thought experiment. Show me the chemistry involved in abiogenesis, and then I can publish a paper.
Until then, it is an interesting discussion for those who have a basis background in science. I overestimated the folks here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 09:53 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-07-2016 12:30 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 10:17 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

It only takes one to debunk it. His logic is convincing so why look further? Once it is debunked, nobody pays much attention. The proof is in the pudding. That study was 2008 or 2009. If it was considered a breakthrough, there would have been huge funding and follow on research. I have heard nothing but crickets because nobody took it seriously.
Even if it was valid, that does not support Bucky's claim that it proves RNA can form spontaneously. It would represent one small step in a process of thousands of steps. (most of which are uphill thermodynamically and result in unstable molecules.)

If you do the research in abiogenesis as I have, and come to the conclusion that you still think it is possible, that's fine. I can respect that. I can't respect your views since you obviously haven't done the research to make up your own mind and believe it on faith. How is your faith any different than any religious adherent?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 09:57 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 09:45 AM)u196533 Wrote:  These people do not even grasp my ideas so how could they refute them? This is a thought experiment. Show me the chemistry involved in abiogenesis, and then I can publish a paper.

So you want me to do the work and you take the credit?

Arrogant and dishonest. Not a good combination.

(04-08-2016 09:45 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Until then, it is an interesting discussion for those who have a basis background in science.

As I noted earlier, you've told us over a dozen times what "science will never do." You also spoke of science "unequivocally proving" things. This is not indicative of a basic background in science.

Rather than attempting to publish your work and submit it to the review of true scientists, you are here, failing to impress us.

(04-08-2016 09:45 AM)u196533 Wrote:  I overestimated the folks here.

And you've overestimated your own knowledge and abilities as well.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
04-08-2016, 10:08 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 09:57 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 09:45 AM)u196533 Wrote:  These people do not even grasp my ideas so how could they refute them? This is a thought experiment. Show me the chemistry involved in abiogenesis, and then I can publish a paper.

So you want me to do the work and you take the credit?

Arrogant and dishonest. Not a good combination.

(04-08-2016 09:45 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Until then, it is an interesting discussion for those who have a basis background in science.

As I noted earlier, you've told us over a dozen times what "science will never do." You also spoke of science "unequivocally proving" things. This is not indicative of a basic background in science.

Rather than attempting to publish your work and submit it to the review of true scientists, you are here, failing to impress us.

(04-08-2016 09:45 AM)u196533 Wrote:  I overestimated the folks here.

And you've overestimated your own knowledge and abilities as well.

You missed my point. Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened, I can't present data to prove this. It is a thought experiment.

How have I been dishonest?

Science has unequivocally proven many things. Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property. That is it's weakness.
It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea. Real scientists know that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 10:43 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(30-07-2016 12:41 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(29-07-2016 02:45 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

We don't know the physical laws break down. That is a theory (like inflation) to describe the facts. We have no data to support that.

I have stated the fact that living things seek energy to lower entropy. Non-living things do not do that as it is a violation of the drives of chemistry. If they are just a collection of atoms, that should not happen.

I have not tried to shut people up. I have tried to educate those who think thermodynamics does not apply to open systems. I welcome a discussion, but don't want to waste time on claims that are just plain stupid.

I come here when I get bored at work. Debates like this with intelligent people are better than reading about Trump or Kim Kardashian's ass. (Although it is nice.)
I truly don't care what someone else believes provided they aren't an asshole.

Until there is some basic just so theory of abiogenesis, there is nothing to publish. I'd need the basic chemistry to collect data and publish it. It is just an interesting thought experiment.
I stumbled on this question in a smoke filled dorm room many years ago. I looked into it out of curiosity. Finding no information, I became interested and have been following it as a kinda hobby.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 10:44 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 10:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 09:57 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  So you want me to do the work and you take the credit?

Arrogant and dishonest. Not a good combination.


As I noted earlier, you've told us over a dozen times what "science will never do." You also spoke of science "unequivocally proving" things. This is not indicative of a basic background in science.

Rather than attempting to publish your work and submit it to the review of true scientists, you are here, failing to impress us.


And you've overestimated your own knowledge and abilities as well.

You missed my point. Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened, I can't present data to prove this. It is a thought experiment.

How have I been dishonest?

Science has unequivocally proven many things. Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property. That is it's weakness.
It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea. Real scientists know that.

"Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened..."

There are many hypotheses. Your ignorance of them does not mean they do not exist.

Organic molecules could have come from extraterrestrial sources (and we have found organic molecules on asteroids now, giving credibility to this hypothesis directly).

Primordial soup hypothesis (the Miller-Urey experiment and those that have modified and/or replicated it have shown that organic molecules can be produced from inorganic chemistry).

Hydrothermal vents plus primordial soup (different energy source, same process as above. Suggesting that chemosynthesizing organisms are the ancestor to all life. Which is corroborated by phylogenetic studies of life).

Even the formation of simple lipid spheres that could have served as the basis of the first cell have been shown plausible in lab settings.


"How have I been dishonest?"

For example: "Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened..." <- ignoring science in order to promote your irrational beliefs, is dishonest

"Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property."

This is nonsensical. And a red herring.

" That is it's weakness. "

No, that's YOUR weakness. Science and the philosophy of science have been tackling this issues and questions for centuries. Your failings and misunderstandings of science and the scientific process don't translate into science failing.

"It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea. Real scientists know that."

You're hardly qualified to tell anyone what "real scientists" believe. But this statement is a no true scotsman.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
04-08-2016, 11:09 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 10:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 10:08 AM)u196533 Wrote:  You missed my point. Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened, I can't present data to prove this. It is a thought experiment.

How have I been dishonest?

Science has unequivocally proven many things. Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property. That is it's weakness.
It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea. Real scientists know that.

"Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened..."

There are many hypotheses. Your ignorance of them does not mean they do not exist.

Organic molecules could have come from extraterrestrial sources (and we have found organic molecules on asteroids now, giving credibility to this hypothesis directly).

Primordial soup hypothesis (the Miller-Urey experiment and those that have modified and/or replicated it have shown that organic molecules can be produced from inorganic chemistry).

Hydrothermal vents plus primordial soup (different energy source, same process as above. Suggesting that chemosynthesizing organisms are the ancestor to all life. Which is corroborated by phylogenetic studies of life).

Even the formation of simple lipid spheres that could have served as the basis of the first cell have been shown plausible in lab settings.


"How have I been dishonest?"

For example: "Until there is a basic proposal for how abiogenesis happened..." <- ignoring science in order to promote your irrational beliefs, is dishonest

"Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property."

This is nonsensical. And a red herring.

" That is it's weakness. "

No, that's YOUR weakness. Science and the philosophy of science have been tackling this issues and questions for centuries. Your failings and misunderstandings of science and the scientific process don't translate into science failing.

"It is a great tool, but isn't a panacea. Real scientists know that."

You're hardly qualified to tell anyone what "real scientists" believe. But this statement is a no true scotsman.

There is no plausible soup to nuts explanation for abiogenesis. That is why there is a $1M reward for anyone that can provide one. (Proof is not required to collect the reward; a plausible story is all that is needed.)
So until we have that, there is nothing on which data can be collected.

(btw - All of the basic hypothesis that you listed all hit a brick wall at some point.)

Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature. it simply cannot predict/explain emergent properties. (E.g. Without prior knowledge, you can analyze sodium and chlorine and determine that if you combine them, it tastes good on a pretzel.)
Name one emergent property that science has predicted or explained by looking at it's components/constituents.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: