Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
Creationist Questions Translated

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/PbBTk

Debate postmortem IV: You know you’re a wacko when Pat Robertson is your voice of reason

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...o-when-pat-robertson-is-your-voice-of-reason/

Bf-caFtCYAEetF7.jpg
 
Ben Miller Ph.D attempting to explain complex physics to "ordinary people": Sean Lock, Alan Davies and Rob Brydon.

One of the best QI episodes ever!



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why abiogenesis is highly unlikely.

Assuming abiogenesis, the first primitive cell must have achieved equilibrium with its surroundings for it to survive.

The equilibrium state is a compromise between minimum enthalpy and maximum entropy.
Chem.gif
A living cell has significantly higher enthalpy and lower entropy than its elements, and therefore is highly unlikely to have been created spontaneously, ie. abiogenesis is highly unlikely.

Remove the "life energy" (or whatever it is) from a cell exposed to the environment, and its entropy will quickly increase as it breaks down to compounds with lower enthalpies.

Complex organic molecules, eg pharmaceuticals, require considerable work to be created and will spontaneously decompose if left exposed to the environment.

What is the "life energy" and where did it come from?
 
Chris45 said:
Why abiogenesis is highly unlikely.

Assuming abiogenesis, the first primitive cell must have achieved equilibrium with its surroundings for it to survive.

The equilibrium state is a compromise between minimum enthalpy and maximum entropy.
View attachment 56755
A living cell has significantly higher enthalpy and lower entropy than its elements, and therefore is highly unlikely to have been created spontaneously, ie. abiogenesis is highly unlikely.

Remove the "life energy" (or whatever it is) from a cell exposed to the environment, and its entropy will quickly increase as it breaks down to compounds with lower enthalpies.

Complex organic molecules, eg pharmaceuticals, require considerable work to be created and will spontaneously decompose if left exposed to the environment.

What is the "life energy" and where did it come from?
Click to expand...

I am not a chemist or biologist, but doesn't that assume a closed system, which the earth is not. We receive energy from the sun and dissipate energy into space. Evolution itself, which is well proven, shows increasing complexity (decreasing entropy). Also, even if a system is closed, it does not mean that certain events cannot occur in a local environment for periods of time. So, for instance, volcanos release heat from the earth's core that is at an extremely high temperature and when combined with the right chemical mix may cause some process to happen. Overall our hypothetically closed earth is in equilibrium, but locally there will be extremes. If these extremes can cause life to form, eventually that life will, as you say, break down into a non-life form. But, because we are not a closed system, our external heat source, the sun, is our "life energy" and it allows that primitive life to increase in complexity as has been observed.

Take away the sun and other sources such as cosmic radiation and eventually, because of the laws you quoted, every form of life, from the simplest living cell to humans, will cease to exist.

I am not pushing the case for abiogenesis, but I don't think the laws you quoted apply, as the earth (still) is and has always been an open system.

At least that is my understanding.
 
Chris45 said:
Ben Miller Ph.D attempting to explain complex physics to "ordinary people": Sean Lock, Alan Davies and Rob Brydon.
Click to expand...

I thought Ben looked like the lead actor in "Murder in Paradise" so I Googled him and he is. That was an interesting episode that I hadn't seen before.
 
bellenuit said:
I am not a chemist or biologist, but doesn't that assume a closed system, which the earth is not. We receive energy from the sun and dissipate energy into space.

....

I am not pushing the case for abiogenesis, but I don't think the laws you quoted apply, as the earth (still) is and has always been an open system.
Click to expand...

As I said most of that is beyond me, but I did find this in relation to abiogenesis:

Finally, it’s amusing that JonathanM invokes Le Chatelier’s Principle. That principle is a qualitative description of the fact that in a thermodynamically closed and isolated chemical system, if a reaction is subjected to a shock, the reaction will ‘seek’ to restore some asymptotic equilibrium rate, the asymptote depending on several variables. But a significant strength of the white smoker model is that the system is not thermodynamically closed; energy (and raw materials) flow through the system in a sort of bioreactor, so Le Chandelier’s Principle is largely irrelevant.

So JonathanM misrepresents Lane in his review and in the process reverts once again to the good old creationist Second Law argument.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/08/di-claims-no-co.html

This is also interesting.....

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
 
bellenuit said:
As I said most of that is beyond me, but I did find this in relation to abiogenesis:

Finally, it’s amusing that JonathanM invokes Le Chatelier’s Principle. That principle is a qualitative description of the fact that in a thermodynamically closed and isolated chemical system, if a reaction is subjected to a shock, the reaction will ‘seek’ to restore some asymptotic equilibrium rate, the asymptote depending on several variables. But a significant strength of the white smoker model is that the system is not thermodynamically closed; energy (and raw materials) flow through the system in a sort of bioreactor, so Le Chandelier’s Principle is largely irrelevant.

So JonathanM misrepresents Lane in his review and in the process reverts once again to the good old creationist Second Law argument.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/08/di-claims-no-co.html

This is also interesting.....

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
Click to expand...
I couldn't make much sense of the first link but that second link is very interesting!
 
"Future Universe" on SBS tonight at 8:30pm. Probably already over for eastern staters, but I expect it will be accessible from SBS On Demand tomorrow.
 
bellenuit said:
I am not a chemist or biologist, but doesn't that assume a closed system, which the earth is not.
Click to expand...
In a chemical reaction, chemical equilibrium is the state in which both reactants and products are present at concentrations which have no further tendency to change with time. Usually, this state results when the forward reaction proceeds at the same rate as the reverse reaction.

It needs to be a closed system in that reactants and products are neither added nor removed. A test tube can be a closed system for equilibrium purposes, as can a pond, or perhaps a local environment around a fumarole. The position of the equilibrium, favouring reactants or products, can be influenced by varying factors such as temperature or pressure (with gases).

If complex molecules can form and achieve an equilibrium in a particular environment, it's difficult to see how such complicated molecules that make up cells could form spontaneously and remain stable to form even more complicated structures, given the enthalpy-entropy requirements.

"Life energy" may not have been the best term to use, and you have interpreted it to mean the sun, which I agree is the source of energy that sustains all life on Earth.

Perhaps "spark of life" or "life force" might be better terms, ie. whatever it is that kick starts the life process. Once the first living cells received that "spark of life", sure evolution took over, but what was that "spark of life" and where did it come from?

The Miller-Urey experiment showed how amino acids and simple sugars could have formed from simple inorganic molecules, but I think the title of that Wired article and the photo is a bit misleading ... "First Spark" may be jumping the gun. However, it sounds like Sutherland's team may have made a significant step forward, but as the article points out they have only synthesized ribonucleotides, the basic ingredients of RNA, not RNA itself as depicted in the photo. If you google images of ribonucleotide and RNA, you can see there's still a very long way to go. The Comments make interesting reading!

While I was reading that article I thought of a possible analogy.
A young child is playing in his back yard and, inspired by the architect designed brick house his father built, dreams of being able to build his own brick cubby-house.
Child discovers how to make plastic clay from fine dirt and water ... the Miller-Urey experiment.
Child then discovers how to fashion a brick and harden it in the sun ... the Sutherland experiment.
Child makes several bricks and starts to build a wall.
I can think of some possible outcomes:
1. Child figures out by himself how to successfully brace walls and roof and completes his cubby house.
2. Child continues to build the wall which, due to his ignorance of engineering laws, collapses on him causing injuries.
3. Father, concerned by what he sees, intervenes and destroys wall and bricks and sends the child off to day-care. :rolleyes:

However, if the Sutherland team continue with their research and manage to synthesize a living cell, I wonder what the repercussions will be? Man synthesizes life ... religions collapse ... atheism rules ... peace and tranquility envelop humanity? :D

Perhaps Clive Palmer will one day be able to populate his golf course with real living T-Rexes rather than robotic ones!

True, evolution shows increasing complexity (decreasing entropy), but isn't that because it involves living systems that have the "life force"? Apart from the Miller-Urey and Sutherland experiments, do any inorganic systems evolve spontaneously to more complex structures which defy the enthalpy-entropy requirements?

I understand evolution to be the process resulting in the development of new species. I'd be cautious about saying that evolution is "well proven". Well evidenced maybe, but not well proven, imo. I think some examples of "proof" of evolution (of new species) could simply be examples of selection, eg. insecticide resistant mosquitoes and antibiotic resistant bacteria. Are antibiotic resistant bacteria new species or just new strains?
 
Some more article that may be of interest.......

Pastor Running an Online Church for the Deaf Comes Out as an Atheist

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-church-for-the-deaf-comes-out-as-an-atheist/

How Creationism Imprisons the Mind

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...stioning_darwin_shows_how_fundamentalism.html

France's tough stance on female genital mutilation is working, say campaigners

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/10/france-tough-stance-female-genital-mutilation-fgm

Seeds of life can sprout in moon's icy pockets

http://www.newscientist.com/article...sprout-in-moons-icy-pockets.html#.UvnpaHn9PBw

Astronomers discover oldest star: Formed shortly after the Big Bang 13. 7 billion years ago

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140209200836.htm
 
20 Amazing Quotes From Atheists That Prove Religion Isn’t Necessary For A Meaningful Life

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/11/20_...isnt_necessary_for_a_meaningful_life_partner/

Accommodation’s big flaw: The dangers of excusing religion

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/11/accommodations_big_flaw_the_dangers_of_excusing_religion/

Is camel discovery the straw that breaks the Bible's back?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/11/is-camel-discovery-the-straw-that-broke-the-bibles-back/

Is Buddhism the Most Science-Friendly Religion?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-buddhism-the-most-science-friendly-religion/
 
Meaningful life....
You don't need God to attribute subjective meaning to your life. I can make the meaning of my life to feed homeless people, or to kill them. Either way it's not an objective meaning for my life but one that I choose.

If we are a cosmic accident and weren't created for an objective purpose then there is no objective purpose, only the subjective one that I give myself.
 
Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. No belief in a God. Not sure that is group it with other religions. Interesting to compare with other philosophies though.
 
bellenuit said:
"Future Universe" on SBS tonight at 8:30pm. Probably already over for eastern staters, but I expect it will be accessible from SBS On Demand tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I watched my recording of that last night. Those robots were fascinating!

Stephen Hawking is certainly a very remarkable man but I'm finding him increasingly difficult to look at as his disease progresses and his body collapses in on itself, and I wish they wouldn't show so many images of him throughout the program.
 
Chris45 said:
I watched my recording of that last night. Those robots were fascinating!

Stephen Hawking is certainly a very remarkable man but I'm finding him increasingly difficult to look at as his disease progresses and his body collapses in on itself, and I wish they wouldn't show so many images of him throughout the program.
Click to expand...

I only watched the first few minutes and recorded the rest for later. I agree, Hawking it is not pleasant to watch for long periods when he appears perfectly still apart from some eye movements. I also find the simulated voice off-putting. I must check it out but I have heard his voice is not produced in real time, but is slowly put together, recorded and played back at normal speed. In which case, why bother to have him present the show. A voice over with a normal voice would be better.
 
pavilion103 said:
Meaningful life....
You don't need God to attribute subjective meaning to your life. I can make the meaning of my life to feed homeless people, or to kill them. Either way it's not an objective meaning for my life but one that I choose.

If we are a cosmic accident and weren't created for an objective purpose then there is no objective purpose, only the subjective one that I give myself.
Click to expand...

What is God's objective purpose for our lives?
 
This is what happens when you take religion and God out of the equation, you end up with a cold heartless killing culture, abortion, euthanasia, the list goes on.

How can we get rid of people we don't need or want in society?
Now Belgium wants to bring in euthanasia with no age limit.

Too bad we don't think the same for criminals.
 
Top