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, 01:13 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 12:31 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 05:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

There is nothing in the literature because they didn't. That idea appears unique to you.

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, 01:18 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 12:54 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 08:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

So you are arguing that someone, without prior knowledge, can look at a few birds or fish by themselves, and determine how they will flock or school when they are in large groups. Bullshit.

A few birds or fish will demonstrate the behaviors that will determine flocking/schooling behavior.
The organisms move in predictable ways and keep a minimum distance from others.

Your ignorance and incredulity coupled with your bizarre interpretations of chemistry and refusal to listen are not a basis for a productive discussion.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
05-08-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 12:57 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 08:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

I don't disagree. However, if you really think through the abiogenesis narrative, that must have occurred at some point in the process.
That dichotomy IS my point.

Then you are flat out wrong. Chemicals do not, and can not, exhibit self-preservation.
There is no self to preserve.
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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-08-2016, 01:23 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 12:59 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 08:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  Wrong. The algorithm that is evolution - self-replication with differential survival and reproduction - does not require life.

100 years of research contradicts that. Chemical evolution has never been demonstrated.

Think hard about what you are saying. Consider
When we understand the conditions that obtained on the early earth, the solution will present. Those conditions are very different than today's, and a billion years is a whole lot longer than 100.

The algorithm is simple and universal.

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, 01:25 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:03 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 12:59 PM)u196533 Wrote:  100 years of research contradicts that. Chemical evolution has never been demonstrated.

There is no such thing as chemical evolution. Once again you are showing a complete lack of understanding.

Living creatures evolve. This fact is built into the definition of a living being.

Some theories of evolution can be applied to inorganic systems, but it is not precisely the same thing.

I suggest you reconsider that position. It is necessary that there was for abiogenesis to have occurred.

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, 01:39 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 12:51 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The Law of Thermo are mathematically proven and are considered inviolate.

Which he invokes when it's convenient.
Yet when it's not convenient to invoke science, he's perfectly comfortable invoking magic, ("supernatural").

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
05-08-2016, 01:43 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 01:03 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  There is no such thing as chemical evolution. Once again you are showing a complete lack of understanding.

Living creatures evolve. This fact is built into the definition of a living being.

Some theories of evolution can be applied to inorganic systems, but it is not precisely the same thing.

I suggest you reconsider that position. It is necessary that there was for abiogenesis to have occurred.

It was my understanding that the chemical reactions increased in complexity but that those reactions did not reach the level of evolution. Am I incorrect?

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
05-08-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:00 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 12:54 PM)u196533 Wrote:  So you are arguing that someone, without prior knowledge, can look at a few birds or fish by themselves, and determine how they will flock or school when they are in large groups. Bullshit.

Someone who understands the behavior of such animals can predict generally how they will react.

Without prior knowledge of what?

To explain an emergent property, one would need to analyze the constituents and explain/predict the property when the parts are assembled. So in this context, one would need to look at A bird or A fish, and then predict their schooling behavior. Without prior knowledge means that someone would not be aware of schooling or flocking behavior before they started the analysis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 01:53 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 12:33 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 12:29 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

"An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have."
You should really take 30 seconds to google something before you respond.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 01:55 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(05-08-2016 01:03 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 12:59 PM)u196533 Wrote:  100 years of research contradicts that. Chemical evolution has never been demonstrated.

There is no such thing as chemical evolution. Once again you are showing a complete lack of understanding.

Living creatures evolve. This fact is built into the definition of a living being.

Some theories of evolution can be applied to inorganic systems, but it is not precisely the same thing.

Actually chemical evolution is a fundamental assumption of abiogenesis. Please do some research.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: