02 Jun 05
You don't know what caued the big bang, but still you insist there was one?
Do you know what caused your God? And if you say God is an exception to the first law of thermodynamics then I will just say the early universe, which we know nothing about, was also an exception to the first law.
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat is the unsolved question. It apparently requires "life" to take disorganized energy and mater (solar energy, carbon-dioxide, water, etc) and turn it into organized potential energy and matter (wood and oxygen). How the life came about is a matter of speculation.
[b]Yes, as the rest of the post said, by offsetting the order from another subsystem.
I was questioning whether the "offsetting" process required any intelligence.
Basically I am questioning whether such a system could produce life from non-life without intelligent intervention.[/b]
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat the universe was expanding at the time all the light reaching us now was emitted is fact.
You don't know what caued the big bang, but still you insist there was one?
Well, I also believe that there was a big bang. But my big bang is slightly different from yours. I know what caused my big bang. I believe God spoke, and BANG! it happened...
Also the velocity of objects measured by it's red shift shows gives us a model made up of a huge number of timeframes, I'm not sure what the universe is doing now vis-a-vis expanding or contracting since we are receiving light emitted at least 8 billion years ago , for all we know it got eaten and is being eaten by Tiamat and has been and is being converted into humongous a dragon turd.
My own guess is that gravity will eventually pull it all back together, since the initial impulse caused a linear velocity and gravitation exerts a quadratic opposing force, and both are functions of time.
Btw you need to get an understanding of M-Theory since that seems about to revolutionize how we view the basic structure of the universe.
Athough you "bible is science" guys haven't given up on trying to surpress science, the genie is out of the bottle and isn't going back in.
One of the biggest problems in Cosmology is what you "creationists" call the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. the problem is stated like this "when incoming and outgoing states are infinitely separated in time, they behave as free noninteracting states"
and has to do with an event horizon which a forever expanding universe would have to have, and the existence of an event horizon makes it impossible for the S-matrix to happen.
That ,btw, is another indication of a cyclical universe IMHO
02 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiYou you must know basic chemistry has all the mechanisms needed to form all the needed organic chemicals naturally, why don't you just say so and go from there.
That is the unsolved question. It apparently requires "life" to take disorganized energy and mater (solar energy, carbon-dioxide, water, etc) and turn it into organized potential energy and matter (wood and oxygen). How the life came about is a matter of speculation.
Science doesnt dispute the existence of God: In fact it's not even trying to.
God's existence isn't dependent on the "truth" of the bible either.
He is or He isn't. That is not a question science is ready to tackle and although there have been numerous attempts on both "sides", science really is neutral on the subject and will remain so until somebody produces a testable hypotheisis and it holds up to scientific scrutiny.
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompNot without the loss of energy which is what plants are doing. You can not take the basic chemicals and produce wood with them. Go ahead and tell me how you take the basic elements produced from burning wood, and return it back into wood without adding more energy to the system at the cost of greater disorder than the order created. That is reflected in the law of entropy. Energy and mass are conserved, but order is not.
You you must know basic chemistry has all the mechanisms needed to form all the needed organic chemicals naturally, why don't you just say so and go from there....
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiThat isn't relevant to to the formation of organic matter.
Not without the loss of energy which is what plants are doing. You can not take the basic chemicals and produce wood with them. Go ahead and tell me how you take the basic elements produced from burning wood, and return it back into wood without adding more energy to the system at the cost of greater disorder than the order created. That is reflected in the law of entropy. Energy and mass are conserved, but order is not.
There is far too much available energy in the system to even consider it a factor .
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompMy point is the Earth is not an isolated system, so the law of entropy does not apply to the formation of organic material. But then again, the presence of basic elements and energy does not explain it either.
That isn't relevant to to the formation of organic matter.
There is far too much available energy in the system to even consider it a factor .
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompThat is a violation of cause and effect. Nothing moves without a push or a pull, chemical do react on their own, there's no perpetual motion machines. That's scientific fantasy.
Here's 2 facts for you..
Chemical reactions take place on their own and life is made up of chemicals.
02 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompPerhaps of more relevance is the current impossibility of creating all or even a majority of the chemicals necessary for life under a single set of condtions (let alone conditions necessary for life to exist) and the mathematical extreme improbability of them all forming in a short enough span in the correct order (where the information problem arises) in the same place to form a cell which is the irreducible simplest form or life possible.
That isn't relevant to to the formation of organic matter.
There is far too much available energy in the system to even consider it a factor .
02 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by yousers3 billion years isn't exactly a short time.
Perhaps of more relevance is the current impossibility of creating all or even a majority of the chemicals necessary for life under a single set of condtions (let alone conditions necessary for life to exist) and the mathematical extreme im ...[text shortened]... rm a cell which is the irreducible simplest form or life possible.
and since the gravitation of the earth determines the make up of the ecosphere all the elements that are necessary to form organic coumpounds were present. those supposed improbilities are somebody's pipedream.
edit what makes you think a single set of conditions is necessary?