The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".

[u196533]

(05-08-2016 01:26 AM)Deesse23 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.

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.

Again it is a thought experiment surrounding the narrative of abiogenesis. On one end you have a replicator molecule that nobody would claim is alive. On the other end you have a primitive proazoan that nobody would deny is alive. Somewhere in that process those simple chemical that do not have DNA must have searched out energy to continue replicating. Non-living things do not do that.

I have no data since we don't know the actual chemistry. The Law of Thermo are mathematically proven and are considered inviolate. The only other explanation I found feasible is that there is some unknown force that only applies to living things. I don't accept that.
Another alternative is to attack the premise and argue that these chemical systems were force fed for 100s of thousands of years in a harsh unstable environment. I reject that.
If you have another, I'd welcome the discussion.

[u196533]

(05-08-2016 08:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 09:41 AM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

yes. That is called activation energy. That is assumed when discussing chemical reactions.

[u196533]

(05-08-2016 08:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 12:34 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

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.

[Bucky Ball]

(05-08-2016 12:37 PM)u196533 Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 06:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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".


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.)

You answered none of the questions asked of you.

[u196533]

(05-08-2016 08:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 05:10 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

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.

[u196533]

(05-08-2016 08:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 05:16 PM)u196533 Wrote:  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.

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

[Fatbaldhobbit]

(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?

[Fatbaldhobbit]

(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.

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.

ETA: Ignore this post. I was quite confused.

[GirlyMan]

(05-08-2016 12:51 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The Law of Thermo are mathematically proven and are considered inviolate.

Yeah. Under the assumption of a closed system. Why you think we are in a closed system? 'Cause your little peabrain can't imagine an open one?

[Fatbaldhobbit]

(05-08-2016 01:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  

(05-08-2016 12:51 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The Law of Thermo are mathematically proven and are considered inviolate.

Yeah. Under the assumption of a closed system. Why you think we are in a closed system? 'Cause your little peabrain can't imagine an open one?

He doesn't understand that the earth is NOT a closed system. Energy is added from the sun.

He also doesn't understand that we are not completely certain that the universe itself is a closed system. Energy may be leaving through black holes or be added through other sources.