The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2016, 01:26 AM
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.

Scientists only applied two well supported theories to an extreme situation. The data was part of developing these theories.
You earlier proudly said you applied the basic rules of chemistry to abiogenesis and figured its impossible to have happened natually.
Quod licet jovi non licet bovi?

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  There is no clear line between life and non life.

Excuse me, while i go and grab me some popcorn while you start explaining how matter behaves (distinctly!) different between living organisms and "dead" matter, while, according to your own claims, there is no clear boundary between life and non-life. Oh, i think im gonna get me some coke too, i think itll take a while.

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Given that chemicals should just lower energy and increase entropy, I find that a violation of physics and therefore supernatural.
You claim to have several scientific degrees but behave unscientific. You continue to do so, even when its been repeatedly pointed out to you!
When a scientist finds data that contradicts current scientific theories, he re-evaluates the scientific theories and/or his experiment/data, unlike you. You start shouting "supernatural".

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The only other explanation is an unknown force that only acts on living things; I don't accept that.
The only other explanation...you can think of. Your personal incredulity and lack of imagination is not an agrument but a fallacy!
Reality doesnt care if you accept it or not.

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Using science to describe how something defies physics is scientific.
Maybe, but stopping to do science and shouting "supernatural" is certainly not. Scientific would be to investigate and trying to reconcile your findings with physics. Thats what scientits are doing ever since.

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  It is not a theory. The 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics and the chemical drive to lower energy/increase energy are established laws of physics.

Is this the "its not a theory but a fact" tangent? I am starting to doubt your engineering degrees. The 2nd law is part of the greater framework of thermodynamics theory, which, just maybe, is incomplete or inaccurate, just like newtonian physics was until Michaelson and Albert E. arrived on the scene.
So please tell me what seems to be more plausible to you:

- we probably need to re-evaluate thermodynamics (if you are right)
- we need to re-evaluate your findings
- its Supernatural!

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I am not refusing to talk about these claims.
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 didnt say you refuse to talk. I said you are trying to make everybody else shut up. And your (obsessive as we can see now) tool is thermodynamics.
No matter how hard i try to take a different tangent to the discussion, no matter how hard everybody else tires different angles to this topic, you always return to thermodynamics, and how this is incompatible with life, and supernatural, and "the end". Its tiresome. We got it. Your thoughts about this aspect are clear.
Can we now please talk about a broader context and different angles of approach to this fascinating topic?

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.
Then you should at least consider that you may still be wrong. Then you should at least consider that other people may have (or not yet) other hypotheses.
If you admit that we "dont understand" and you "have no data", why the obsession with the supernatual and an entity behind all this?
This tells us more about your psychological needs than about your abilities as an engineer.
What we are really talking about here all the time is not abiogenesis, but why you need to know what is not known, and why you need to have something supernatural as an explanation. We are talking about your insecurities and your resulting need of comfort. This is not bad, we all are human and need this. But you should be honest about it (first be honest with yourself!) and not come here and cloak it all up with "chemistry 101".

(04-08-2016 04:27 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Why are you here?
I have various reasons, one of which is getting more in touch with the english language, a colourful international community and the application of rational thought. I am not here for debates, but for discussion and exchange of ideas, i want to learn about and understand people from different cultures.
All of this, and some more. Atheism is only a small part of me and religion is almost a non-issue in my life, but i have come to the conclusion that we are living in times where religion is sadly becoming more and more of an issue lately, an issue we have to deal with, one way or the other.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Deesse23's post
05-08-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 09:41 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(30-07-2016 03:10 PM)TechnoMonkey Wrote:  (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.

Bombs do not go off spontaneously. They are triggered by an input of energy.

Try again. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 08:23 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 12:34 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 11:46 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You said:

To me that quote sounds like you want me to show you how abiogenesis works and then you can publish a paper on it. If I misunderstood you then I apologize.


There are many things that science has yet to accomplish. The key word is yet.


I don't remember anyone saying it was. But for all of the imperfections, science is our best tool.

Science never has and never will explain an emergent property. It is like using a microscope to dig a whole. It is the wrong tool.

Ignorance on display. Facepalm

The behaviors of flocks of birds and schools of fish are emergent properties, yet are explained by the behaviors of individual members.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-08-2016, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 08:34 AM by Chas.)
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 05:10 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 04:51 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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=

Not the abiogenesis narrative. There is no explanation of HOW self preservation emerged in pre-biotic chemical systems.

Your insistence that chemicals demonstrate "self preservation" is absurd. Chemicals are stable or not depending on the environment. That's it - it's just chemistry.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 08:32 AM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 05:16 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 05:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  EVOLUTION. Ever hear of it?

1. Evolution doesn't kick in until after abiogenesis.

Wrong. The algorithm that is evolution - self-replication with differential survival and reproduction - does not require life.

Quote:2. There is no explanation for HOW self preservation emerged even in the narrative of evolution. It just assumes it, but does not explain HOW a simple chemical system would seek energy to lower entropy.

Your ridiculous "self preservation" demonstrates your utter misunderstanding of evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-08-2016, 12:29 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 05:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 05:11 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Show me evidence of one emergent property that was predicted or explained from just analyzing the components.

If they were predictable or explainable from just the components they wouldn't be emergent properties now would they? They'd be expected outcomes with some vague likelihoods. .... Did you say you were an engineer? Which discipline??
Their predictability has nothing to do with a property being defined as emergent. The criteria is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 12:31 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 05:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 05:16 PM)u196533 Wrote:  1. Evolution doesn't kick in until after abiogenesis.
2. There is no explanation for HOW self preservation emerged even in the narrative of evolution. It just assumes it, but does not explain HOW a simple chemical system would seek energy to lower entropy.

And as a result of your preconceived conclusion that life has an origin that is not explainable in natural terms (abiogenesis) you immediately discount it then discount explanations about its evolution.

I'm assuming the stupidity of this is lost on you?

It is not a preconceived conclusion. I used to think it was possible, but changed my mind as the data rolled in over the years.
There is nothing in the literature to describe HOW simple chemical systems developed self-preservation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 12:33 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 12:29 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 05:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  If they were predictable or explainable from just the components they wouldn't be emergent properties now would they? They'd be expected outcomes with some vague likelihoods. .... Did you say you were an engineer? Which discipline??
Their predictability has nothing to do with a property being defined as emergent. The criteria is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

So you don't understand the meaning of "emergent" either. Check.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 05:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 05:16 PM)u196533 Wrote:  1. Evolution doesn't kick in until after abiogenesis.
2. There is no explanation for HOW self preservation emerged even in the narrative of evolution. It just assumes it, but does not explain HOW a simple chemical system would seek energy to lower entropy.

Completely false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation
He has no clue how evolution works.

As usual your post is off topic. HOW did self preservation arise in simple chemical systems during abiogenesis?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 12:37 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(04-08-2016 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 05:16 PM)u196533 Wrote:  1. Evolution doesn't kick in until after abiogenesis.
2. There is no explanation for HOW self preservation emerged even in the narrative of evolution. It just assumes it, but does not explain HOW a simple chemical system would seek energy to lower entropy.

Evolution never "kicks in". It's a false barrier.
Natural selection is always operational. You really are dumb. Natural selection does not only work on living systems.
Tell us when an intelligent animal has a "mind" and when a somewhat intelligent animal does not have a "mind".
Laugh out load

BTW, you have never told us what the absolute boundary is between life and non-life. Are viruses "alive" ?

Provide evidence of natural selection in non-living things. 100 years of research has yet to uncover a naturally occurring replicator molecule outside of a cell. When the tiny synthesized ones are modified to simulate mutation, they cease to replacate. (They only replicate for a few cycles anyway before mutated.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: