24 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou asking that question tells me you have no idea what abiogenesis is all
Did abiogenesis supposedly occur within the universe?
about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
You can clearly see that they're two different theories dealing with two
different aspect of life, and none of them deals with the existence and
creation of a universe.
24 Feb 07
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou're confusing what your mind perceive as order with what universal
Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.
order is all about. I've explained this already. It's just an order beyond
your need. This kind of egocentric view on the universe that religious
believers display always amazes me. If things aren't here for us, if they
serve no purpose to us, than they don't belong in this universe and are
clearly disorderly. Because we have to work to maintain an order that
works for us, there has to be a divine being who created us, the "order"
we can see, and and gave us the ability to maintain that "order".
The truth is that the dust and must you describe come through natural
processes, hence they're part of nature's order (whether it suites the
civilised man or not). Bacteria that makes us sick are part of nature's
order. Viruses that can completely break down our bodies, are part of
nature's order. This whole disorder thing doesn't even exist. No matter
what happens, there will always be an order such that parts of the
universe fits in nicely with the surrounding (whether we can see it or not),
and as long as there's movement this order will change to serve other
parts (and adapting parts).
There is order all right. Your puny human mind just can't see it, because
you assume that any order has to have a human means to an end. If
evolution doesn't lead to human-like beings, it's failed. If abiogenesis
doesn't lead directly to evolution, it, evolution, or both is wrong. If
something came from nothing (as unlikely and hard to believe as an
eternal God) it can't be. You draw all these conclusions based on what
you as a human can understand and not. And that is where you err,
my friend.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Feb 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowThe entire system according to your reasoning was a dot of matter, which is now the entire universe, and by your reasoning the enitre universe now is more run down that your dot of matter was.
That is exactly the opposite of what we mean by local. We are talking about changes on a smaller scale which do not effect the entire universe. e.g. Earth may decrease in entropy, while some spot halfway across the Milky Way increases. These changes are local, and can happen with no net change to the overall entropy of the universe.
Surely you can see that you are being intellectually dishonest about the issue at hand?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenDid abiogenesis occur before life started evolving or not?
You asking that question tells me you have no idea what abiogenesis is all
about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
You can clearly see that they're two different theories dealing with two
different aspect of life, and none of them deals with the existence and
creation of a universe.
24 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerFirst, we haven't been arguing about the Big Bang.
The entire system according to your reasoning was a dot of matter, which is now the entire universe, and by your reasoning the enitre universe now is more run down that your dot of matter was.
Surely you can see that you are being intellectually dishonest about the issue at hand?
"Run down" is not a technical term. I believe that there is less energy available for work now than there was earlier in the universe. Stop trying to impose your definitions of order entropy onto what was actually met by the scientific theories in question.
I am not being intellectually dishonest, you just refuse to understand what the 2nd law of thermodynamics means.
25 Feb 07
4 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerRead the links and you'll have your answer. Understand that abiogenesis
Did abiogenesis occur before life started evolving or not?
has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It's not about life from
nothing as you seem to think (I think you're drawing a parallel between
non-life and nothing - correct me if I'm wrong). And evolution has nothing to
do with how it all started. And the belief in a God is not incompatible with
either of these two, since they don't deal with the issue of a God at all.
The last would be unscientific by the way, since we can't test a God
hypothesis in any way.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowDo you mean to say that the second law of thermodynamics has NOTHING to do with the fact that things in the universe are running down?
First, we haven't been arguing about the Big Bang.
"Run down" is not a technical term. I believe that there is less energy available for work now than there was earlier in the universe. Stop trying to impose your definitions of order entropy onto what was actually met by the scientific theories in question.
I am not being intellectually dishonest, you just refuse to understand what the 2nd law of thermodynamics means.
Do you mean to say that the second law of thermodynamics was not applicable before, during or after the big bang?
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerNO, stop trying to twist my words.
So you agree that life would NOT have been able to evolve if abiogenesis did not occur prior to it?
I meant that it is my belief that abiogenesis occured. If it happened, it happened before evolution began. You asked if abiogenesis occured before evolution. What I meant was that, IF abiogenesis occured, it obviously occured before evolution began (a.k.a. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis). I was merely temporaly ordering events, not talking about neccesity. I think abiogenesis occured before evolution, and we can discuss why I think that another time, but It is not neccesary for abiogenesis to have happened in order for evolution to happen.
By live 'evolving' we mean that life changed. e.g. One species came about from another species, or on a larger scale like a whole order or kingdom from another, or on a smaller scale, like one breed of dog from another. These are all examples of evolution. Evolution does NOT mean that life came from 'non-life'. Evolution deals with life and how it changes or changed from one form to another. Where it came from is a question for scientists studying the origin of life, not evolution.
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerOnce again, "running down" is not a technical term, and I have no idea what you mean. The second law of thermodynamics is merely a mathematical representation of how things probably are. It is not the cause of anything, just a description. Like how the pythagorean theorem does not "cause" right triangles with sides of length 3 and 4 to have a hypotenuse of length 5. As for relating to it, the 2nd law says that entropy should increase, and it seems like it has, so big bang theory doesn't disagree with it.
Do you mean to say that the second law of thermodynamics has NOTHING to do with the fact that things in the universe are running down?
Do you mean to say that the second law of thermodynamics was not applicable before, during or after the big bang?
"In the sciences, a law of nature, an empirical law or principle, or physical law is a statement that describes regular or patterned relationships among observable phenomena." You should note that while it is quite well established, the 2nd law of thermodynamics may not be true, like any scietific law, it is not "above" a theory, it is just a different thing altogether. There may be exceptions we don't know about as relates to phenomena we have yet to observe.
-The second law of thermodynamics may or may not have been aplicable before or 'at' the big bang, I suspect that it might not have been, but at the moment I don't have any good reference for that or anyone close to an expert nearby, so I won't swear on it, and it doesn't matter anyway.
I do think it was applicable after the big bang. This is not a problem, as the energy shortly after the big bang was extremely well ordered, as can be seen by the homogeneousity of the Cosmic Microwave Background(CMB from here on). The planets and stars and everything we have today are much more 'disorderly' from an energistic point of view, than things were earlier.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowWell at least you are honest enough to admit that you are not an expert, I'll give you that much.
Once again, "running down" is not a technical term, and I have no idea what you mean. The second law of thermodynamics is merely a mathematical representation of how things probably are. It is not the cause of anything, just a description. Like how the pythagorean theorem does not "cause" right triangles with sides of length 3 and 4 to have a hypote ...[text shortened]... h more 'disorderly' from an energistic point of view, than things were earlier.
Just as an aside, where did all the matter and energy come from that was involved in the big bang?
25 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerI do know an expert who I will ask if I remember to the next time I see him.
Well at least you are honest enough to admit that you are not an expert, I'll give you that much.
Just as an aside, where did all the matter and energy come from that was involved in the big bang?
The matter and energy did "come from nothing". This is ok though, we observe it all the time with virtual particles and fun Quantum-mechanics-making-you-slam-your-head-into-a-wall situations like that. And a lot of scientists think the net energy of the universe is 0, so conservation of energy still holds, although conservation of energy is Newtonian and gets really weird when you get into Relativistic physics, so apparently it isn't neccesary that the net energy of the universe be 0 anyway.
I suggest we create a new thread for this or leave it alone and stick to 2nd law of thermodynamics argument in this thread.