The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2016, 12:40 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 12:32 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 11:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "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."


Asserting something as fact when there are a variety of scientific papers on these very hypotheses, is arrogant and stupid.

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

All of these hypotheses are tested and demonstrate plausibility. The "brick walls" you assert that they hit are typically limitations on the laboratory setting and/or the fact that we can't simulate millions of years of time in the lab. This does NOT disprove these hypotheses. Asserting that it does, just makes you look desperate.

"Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature."

No, science is not. Because science and the philosophy of science are also cumulative.

"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.)"

Holy shit this is stupid. A subjective claim isn't an objective fact.

"Name one emergent property that science has predicted or explained by looking at it's components/constituents."

You don't appear to know what the fuck an "emergent" property is if you assert that subjective opinions are emergent properties.

How about this, the molecular structure of Na and Cl covalently bonded together result in a cubic crystalline structure, which is an emergent property of the covalent bond and the angles between the the positively charged Na cation and the negatively charged Cl anion.

Simply not true. There are many proposals (none of them are worthy of being a hypothesis yet) related to a singular process associated with abiogenesis. (E.g. How a membrane may have formed) If what you say is true, then why is there still a $1M reward?
Please do your research before you display your ignorance on the topic.

You don't know what an emergent property is either.

"There are many proposals (none of them are worthy of being a hypothesis yet) related to a singular process associated with abiogenesis."

And you don't know what a hypothesis is. Got it.

"(E.g. How a membrane may have formed)"

Red Herring

"If what you say is true, then why is there still a $1M reward?"

Don't know, don't give a shit. I don't do science for a $1million dollar reward nor do any other scientists I know. Some dipshit theist offering up a reward for what they consider to be evidence of life's origins is a meaningless gesture and has no bearing on the validity of hypotheses related to abiogenesis.

"Please do your research before you display your ignorance on the topic."

Telling a paleontologist to do their research on this topic that they have studied, makes you look an arrogant tool.

"You don't know what an emergent property is either."

I gave you an example of an emergent property, you gave me an example of a subjective opinion. Quite the arrogant little fucker, aren't you?

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, 12:41 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
And did anyone notice he forgot to say what the "right tool" was ?
Laugh out load .. Laugh out load .. Laugh out load

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
04-08-2016, 12:59 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 12:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And did anyone notice he forgot to say what the "right tool" was ?
Laugh out load .. Laugh out load .. Laugh out load

He also mentioned "digging a whole", which makes him sound like some sort of beatnik.

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 01:56 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 12:40 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 12:32 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Simply not true. There are many proposals (none of them are worthy of being a hypothesis yet) related to a singular process associated with abiogenesis. (E.g. How a membrane may have formed) If what you say is true, then why is there still a $1M reward?
Please do your research before you display your ignorance on the topic.

You don't know what an emergent property is either.

"There are many proposals (none of them are worthy of being a hypothesis yet) related to a singular process associated with abiogenesis."

And you don't know what a hypothesis is. Got it.

"(E.g. How a membrane may have formed)"

Red Herring

"If what you say is true, then why is there still a $1M reward?"

Don't know, don't give a shit. I don't do science for a $1million dollar reward nor do any other scientists I know. Some dipshit theist offering up a reward for what they consider to be evidence of life's origins is a meaningless gesture and has no bearing on the validity of hypotheses related to abiogenesis.

"Please do your research before you display your ignorance on the topic."

Telling a paleontologist to do their research on this topic that they have studied, makes you look an arrogant tool.

"You don't know what an emergent property is either."

I gave you an example of an emergent property, you gave me an example of a subjective opinion. Quite the arrogant little fucker, aren't you?

The study of abiogenesis is hard core chemistry. How does studying paleontology make you an expert?

An emergent property is when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Describing the structure of salt is not an example of an emergent property.
Bucky provided an example of consciousness. He is also correct when he said science cannot explain it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 01:58 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 12:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 11:10 AM)u196533 Wrote:  Science however, has never been able to explain or predict an emergent property.

Consciousness. It hasn't been completely explained, but they're working on it. Not having all your infantile answers this morning is no reason to jump to "gawd done it".

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

Tell us what "real scientists" are, pray tell. Facepalm

Quote: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.

There are many labs working on it. You are just too ignorant of the field to know who and where they are. Not having a complete explanation is no reason to stop working, and say "Oh fuck, Jebus done it".

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

They have not. You are an ignoramus. If they had, no one would be working on the question.

Quote:Science IS reductionistic by its' very nature. it simply cannot predict/explain emergent properties.

There is nothing more idiotically reductionistic than "I have no answer, so it's SUPERNATURAL". THE most idioticly ignorant idea EVER proposed

No Your paper describing how the 2nd Law of Thermo disproves evolution is the most ignorant idea EVER proposed
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 02:00 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 12:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 12:32 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Simply not true. There are many proposals (none of them are worthy of being a hypothesis yet) related to a singular process associated with abiogenesis. (E.g. How a membrane may have formed) If what you say is true, then why is there still a $1M reward?
Please do your research before you display your ignorance on the topic.

You don't know what an emergent property is either.

There are a number of proposals for how membranes formed. You just don't know what they are. You have proven by your ignorant reply to my post about what the Manchester Group has done, that you are totally out of touch with research in 2016. It's no longer 1950, pops.

I stated there are proposals for how membranes formed. That is not a soup to nuts explanation of abiogenesis.
Provide evidence that it has been proven that RNA can form spontaneously. That was the assertion that got us on that track.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 02:15 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 01:58 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 12:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Consciousness. It hasn't been completely explained, but they're working on it. Not having all your infantile answers this morning is no reason to jump to "gawd done it".


Tell us what "real scientists" are, pray tell. Facepalm


There are many labs working on it. You are just too ignorant of the field to know who and where they are. Not having a complete explanation is no reason to stop working, and say "Oh fuck, Jebus done it".


They have not. You are an ignoramus. If they had, no one would be working on the question.


There is nothing more idiotically reductionistic than "I have no answer, so it's SUPERNATURAL". THE most idioticly ignorant idea EVER proposed

No Your paper describing how the 2nd Law of Thermo disproves evolution is the most ignorant idea EVER proposed

?????

You have made this silly assertion several times in this thread. Bucky never said any such thing..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(29-07-2016 11:46 AM)Bucky Ball 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.

That is a remarkably ignorant thing to say.
To say something is "outside" space-time is meaningless.
(It's also a perfect example of a non-sequitur). You've attempted to connect two unconnected things. The laws of the universe apply to ONLY the universe, not to what might be external to it. If you invoke the laws of the universe, you must find your answer inside it. You know nothing except the universe, AND as as been pointed out, you know about only a tiny fraction of it, (5 %). The universe also has been proven to be non-intuitive ... Relativity, Uncertainty and some math are not "logical".

Looks like I have to spell this one out for you too. By invoking the Laws of the Universe we know that the energy in it could have have just popped into existence from nothing. It has been proposed that the universe was always there. However the 2nd Law states that energy always disperses. Therefore it could not have been concentrated into a single point per the Big Bang. Also it would have dispersed by now, so our universe would be in a state of heat death by now if the energy in it was eternal.
Therefore it is logical to conclude that something that predates and exists outside of our known universe put it there.

We have no idea what existed prior to the Big Bang. Stating that existence outside space time is meaningless is completely unfounded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 10:43 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

We do know they break down, because at this small scale the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics are becoming contradictory, so at least one of them must be wrong/incomplete as it is.

(04-08-2016 10:43 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

And i have told you repeatedly now that you are neither even providing specific information as to define
  • what exactly you are claiming here (what is the difference between life and non-life)
  • what the causes are supposed to be responsible for your (improperly defined) behaviour of "life". The only probable cause you provided was "creator", which equals "magic" and is thoroughly unscientific

(04-08-2016 10:43 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

No you were and are trying to shut people up, by obsessively trying to focus this discussion on thermodynamics instead of answering questions or replying properly to criticism (like i just did, again) of your hypothesis. So again i am asking you: What if the behaviour of "life" demonstrates that the current theory of thermodynamics is wrong/incomplete? Why do you jump to "magic" instead of "lets investigate further? Why are you refusing to talk about you, your claims, and how you back up your claims in general and your conclusions ("magic")?
We dont know why, but we do see that you indeed refuse to do so, and thats dishonest.

(04-08-2016 10:43 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

All you are doing here is engaging in a weak attempt backpedaling. Now, after many pages its a "thought experiment" only? Really? Well, your thought experiment ended with "first cause/creator". Lets continue your experiment: Have you been thinking yet of which religion and denomination to join and which rites to follow? What first cause is the most probable to you? Allah? Yhwh? Odin? Zeus? Got a new one?
Ahh, no, it was a thought experiment only that was meant to stop at "science is wrong, its all magic", right? You wanted to insert any god, not a specific one. That leap is to be put under the rug (for now), since it would make your dishonesty too obvious.

First you come here and try to lecture everybody on why and how "life contradicts the basic drives of thermodynamics". Then we are pointing out that you should be discussing your finds and claims with more competent people like scientists who are working in the very fields of where your claims are. Noone ever asked you to disprove any theory of abioogenesis, thats a strawman. If you claim "creator/first cause", you should have some data or argument to back this up (special pleading is/was a bad argument of yours) and discuss it with the proper people. If you claim that life is different from non-life, you should specify how exactly. So why arent you writing articles about this? Why do you refuse to continue your own thought experiment when being pushed?

(04-08-2016 10:43 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

...and at the end your conclusion was "first cause" aka the fallacy of special pleading? It took you years to come this far? Isnt that a bit....weak and inconsequentlial? If you are coming here and lecture people on why they are wrong about thermodynamics, you should be so honest and admit you are wrong about "first cause" as well.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
04-08-2016, 02:32 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 02:15 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 01:58 PM)u196533 Wrote:  No Your paper describing how the 2nd Law of Thermo disproves evolution is the most ignorant idea EVER proposed

?????

You have made this silly assertion several times in this thread. Bucky never said any such thing..

Uh yea. He posted a paper and the author made that conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: