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, 04:35 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 02:23 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  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.


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


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.


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?


...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?

You're not debating it, you're asserting that you know more science than the scientists and are uniquely qualified to tell scientists they're wrong and don't know science.

You're an arrogant dick and a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect

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, 04:37 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 04:35 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 03:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Now he's an expert in neuroscience and psychology Laugh out load

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, 04:42 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 04:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Now he's an expert in neuroscience and psychology Laugh out load

Well, he IS an engineer after all...

[Image: train-conductor-clipart-train-conductor-idea.jpg]

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
04-08-2016, 04:43 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 04:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Nobody can disprove that other universes or planes of existence exist. Many physicists propose alternate universes.

Existence is the fact or state of being.

I didn't state that God created reality. The evidence suggests that it created our known universe and/or life.

"Creation" is a noun.

Easy-peasy. Took about 2 minutes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 04:44 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 04:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 04:35 PM)u196533 Wrote:  No they have no explanation for the emergence of a mind. Science cannot analyze a brain, nerve, spinal chord etc. and explain its emergence.

Now he's an expert in neuroscience and psychology Laugh out load

I'm not an expert and know very little of those fields. I do know that science cannot explain the emergence of the mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 04:45 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 04:43 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 04:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Nobody can disprove that other universes or planes of existence exist. Many physicists propose alternate universes.

Existence is the fact or state of being.

I didn't state that God created reality. The evidence suggests that it created our known universe and/or life.

"Creation" is a noun.

Easy-peasy. Took about 2 minutes.

If you want to invoke a god as a plausible mechanism for the creation of the universe or life, you must first show evidence that your god (your invoked mechanism) is plausible.

We will wait while you prove god. Drinking Beverage

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, 04:47 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 04:44 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 04:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Now he's an expert in neuroscience and psychology Laugh out load

I'm not an expert and know very little of those fields. I do know that science cannot explain the emergence of the mind.

Claims to know very little about these fields, still claims to know (with apparent absolute certainty) what these fields have not explained.

Do you even try to comprehend the stupid shit you're saying?

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
04-08-2016, 04:48 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 04:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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?

You're not debating it, you're asserting that you know more science than the scientists and are uniquely qualified to tell scientists they're wrong and don't know science.

You're an arrogant dick and a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect

No. You are not debating it. I am attempting to but only get red herrings, strawmen, ad hominem attacks and tangents.
Show me a scientific paper on the topic. There is none, so there is no scientific position to refute.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 04:51 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 04:48 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 04:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not debating it, you're asserting that you know more science than the scientists and are uniquely qualified to tell scientists they're wrong and don't know science.

You're an arrogant dick and a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect

No. You are not debating it. I am attempting to but only get red herrings, strawmen, ad hominem attacks and tangents.
Show me a scientific paper on the topic. There is none, so there is no scientific position to refute.

There is no scientific paper on what? Abiogenesis hypotheses? I cited one of the more famous early ones in Miller-Urey (edit: sorry, 1953; 1959). You could literally just take it and search for all papers citing it.

Here, I did it for you:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...7&as_sdtp=

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, 04:53 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
How many you want? Google scholar is great:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_yl...as_sdt=0,7

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: