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, 02:38 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 01:56 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The study of abiogenesis is hard core chemistry. How does studying paleontology make you an expert?

The study of abiogenesis is hard core chemistry. How does having degrees in engineering make you an expert?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
04-08-2016, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 02:47 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 02:23 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

Please explain how "predate" works without time existing. Please explain how "outside" works without space. Repeating falshoods doesnt make them true, no matter how hard you try. What are you trying here even? To be a scientist or a philosopher? Please make up your mind. If you are trying to be a philosopher we can grab each others dick and argue all day long about the stuff outside and prior to our universe, without time or space to be there. If you try to be a scientist, you should stop at "we have no idea" and delete the rest of your statement.

And again your are trying to smuggle entities in ("something.....put it there") where its not warranted. Why so?
And then you contradict yourself immediately. If we dont know, how do you know the energy was "put there"? Maybe by one of my universe creating unicorns?

(04-08-2016 02:23 PM)u196533 Wrote:  We have no idea what existed prior to the Big Bang. Stating that existence outside space time is meaningless is completely unfounded.

Nope, "existence" needs a time and a place to exist, doesnt it? If not, then please explain how existence outside of spacetime is meaningful.
Please explain as well what and how "prior to time" is.

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
04-08-2016, 02:59 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 02:38 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 01:56 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The study of abiogenesis is hard core chemistry. How does studying paleontology make you an expert?

The study of abiogenesis is hard core chemistry. How does having degrees in engineering make you an expert?

It doesn't and I don't claim to be. I have been following the research for years and have read more papers in that field than I can remember. That makes me qualified to have an intelligent discussion on the topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 03:47 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 02:00 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 12:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

No complete explanation of anything ever popped out "complete", ever. They ALL were works in evolution at some point. The fact that there is no "soup to nuts" explanation is no reason to stop working on anything. You have no evidence or ANY rational explanation for jumping to your irrational "therefore it's supernatural" bullshit.

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, 03:54 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 01:56 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

I said they have no COMPLETE explanation ... YET. That does not provide any reason to stop experimenting. The study of abiogenesis in NOT "hard core chemistry". It's (complex) Biology, of which you have proven yourself to be totally ignorant. "Your definition of "emergent property" is meaningless. Consciousness can be easily explained. Sensory input, rapidly referenced to memory (stored as we know has been proven by DNA) produces the sensation of consciousness. There is NOT ONE example of a conscious being who has a damaged brain. It's not Creationist woo-bullshit. The answer is physical, as any Neuro-scientist knows.

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, 03:56 PM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 04:22 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 02:59 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 02:38 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  The study of abiogenesis is hard core chemistry. How does having degrees in engineering make you an expert?

It doesn't and I don't claim to be. I have been following the research for years and have read more papers in that field than I can remember. That makes me qualified to have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

You have disqualified yourself with your "supernatural" bullshit explanation. You invoke science, and yet deny it in the same sentence.
BTW, you never proved there is such a thing, AND you have never defined what you even mean by that word ("supernatural"), and you have not demonstrated how it is you know anything about this "supernatural" crap, and where you got the idea, and how you know it is valid.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-08-2016, 04:08 PM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 04:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 02:23 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Therefore it is logical to conclude that something that predates and exists outside of our known universe put it there.

Total bullshit. Spacetime is a property of this universe. You know nothing else. You have no evidence for anything else. There is no "outside" (a SPATIAL property) space. "Putting" requires time, a priori. You can't be THAT stupid. "Outside" spacetime is a phrase without meaning. "Outside" REQUIRES space.

Define "existence" and in doing so use NO term or word that invokes spacetime. You can't do it. Your bullshit is meaningless, incorrect, unexamined bullshit verbiage.

Then tell us how your deity can "exist" yet have also created Reality, in which non-existence (which ALWAYS had to be a property of a larger Reality if He "exists"). Reality therefore was always larger than your "god that exists" and He can't be the creator of a Reality He is REQUIRED to a participant in. You're fucked, even with a "god that exists". Reality remains unexplained, and your god "found itself" as a part of something larger in which it is REQUIRED to participate, and not the master of.

"Creation" is an action verb. It needs Causality and time. How can a god "cause" Causality, if the principle is not already in place ?

Take your time. You have no answers to any of the real questions.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-08-2016, 04:27 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 02:23 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(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.

First, no we do not know that the Laws of Physics break down. It is all theory, with no data.

There is no clear line between life and non life. The narrative of abiogenesis starts with a replicator molecule (which clearly isn't alive) and ends with some primitive single cell life form. Given that narrative. I don't think it is possible to say exactly at what point life formed. However, somewhere in that process those pre-biotic chemicals must have developed self preservation. That is ignored in the abiogenesis and evolution research.
Given that chemicals should just lower energy and increase entropy, I find that a violation of physics and therefore supernatural. The only other explanation is an unknown force that only acts on living things; I don't accept that. Using science to describe how something defies physics is scientific.

It is not a theory. The 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics and the chemical drive to lower energy/increase energy are established laws of physics.

I am not refusing to talk about these claims. I was trying to keep the comments on topic to have an interesting discussion. However, many of the folks posting went off on tangents or stated stupid things like entropy doesn't apply to open systems.

I didn't come here to lecture people on thermodynamics, but when they made false assertions I was forced to do so to refute their claims.

I have discussed this with many people with chemistry backgrounds. I am convinced it is a valid argument. I cannot publish a paper because we don't understand the chemistry associated with abiogenesis, so I can't provide data to support it.

I am not religious, and really don't care what someone else believes. I find it an interesting topic for debate. Why are you here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 04:33 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
I feel bad showing you your ignorance. Clearly someone (me) who studies the linkage between life and climate/environment is not well suited to know about abiogenesis and you (an engineer) somehow are. Fuck logic, amirite?

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
04-08-2016, 04:35 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 03:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 01:56 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

I said they have no COMPLETE explanation ... YET. That does not provide any reason to stop experimenting. The study of abiogenesis in NOT "hard core chemistry". It's (complex) Biology, of which you have proven yourself to be totally ignorant. "Your definition of "emergent property" is meaningless. Consciousness can be easily explained. Sensory input, rapidly referenced to memory (stored as we know has been proven by DNA) produces the sensation of consciousness. There is NOT ONE example of a conscious being who has a damaged brain. It's not Creationist woo-bullshit. The answer is physical, as any Neuro-scientist knows.

No they have no explanation for the emergence of a mind. Science cannot analyze a brain, nerve, spinal chord etc. and explain its emergence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: