"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[Dr GS Hurd]

You seem to be claiming the universe created itself from nothing.

I'll bet you will really enjoy reading;
Krauss, Lawrence
2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press

 

[MasonP]

You seem to be claiming the universe created itself from nothing.

I don't know how the universe came into being, no one does, but I do know an imagined entity didn't create it.

 

[USincognito]

that's simple. The fraud was exposed.

So you can't summarize his argument in your own words. Got it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Don't blame me for the fossil. Don't blame me that you're not allowed to accept the truth of it.

As I guessed, well, if you are not open to the posibility of being wrong then you are not interested in an honest debate either.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't know what the cut-off point is for the building blocks of life. You'll have to talk to the OP about it.

The 'building blocks' of life (organic molecules, amino acids, phosphorous and other minerals), are found everywhere in the known universe, from comets, asteroids, and planets, to interstellar gas clouds. Their chemistry is pretty much ubiquitous, and they are produced by the chemical interactions of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and other elements in all those places. It's no surprise that they form the basis for the chemistry of life.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The 'building blocks' of life (organic molecules, amino acids, phosphorous and other minerals), are found everywhere in the known universe, from comets, asteroids, and planets, to interstellar gas clouds. Their chemistry is pretty much ubiquitous. It's no surprise that they form the basis for the chemistry of life.

I thought the topic in the OP was only about the cells that form the basis of organic life.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I thought the topic in the OP was only about the cells that form the basis of organic life.

I'm just going by standard usage - life is the active, metabolising stuff, like cells and such, and the building blocks of life are the organic molecules, amino acids, etc., that the living stuff is made of. The building blocks of life don't evolve in the Darwinian sense, they're the result of 'simple' chemistry. The knowledge gap is how those building blocks formed the first replicators (we seem to be getting close with 'RNA World', which suggests a pre-DNA proto-life environment involving RNA, which can spontaneously polymerize, is catalytic, does the key tasks in protein assembly, and can replicate).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm just going by standard usage - life is the active, metabolising stuff, like cells and such, and the building blocks of life are the organic molecules, amino acids, etc., that the living stuff is made of. The building blocks of life don't evolve in the Darwinian sense, they're the result of 'simple' chemistry. The knowledge gap is how those building blocks formed the first replicators (we seem to be getting close with 'RNA World', which suggests a pre-DNA proto-life environment involving RNA, which can spontaneously polymerize, is catalytic, does the key tasks in protein assembly, and can replicate).

Yeah, I get that. But I think that since -57 explicitly mentioned evolving, I think it's possible that 'building blocks of life' is DNA.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is the same thing as saying the bridge is to complicated to build itself.

No, it's not. Because bridges aren't biological organisms that self-replicate with variation and which are in competition for limited resources in an ever-changing environment. As such, they aren't subject to the laws and processes that such organisms ARE subject to. One of those processes is evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'll bet you will really enjoy reading;
Krauss, Lawrence
2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press

The universe does not come from nothing. The Universe was created by quantum physical laws rather then the classic physics laws that governs and regulates the universe now.

 

[SteveB28]

The universe does not come from nothing. The Universe was created by quantum physical laws rather then the classic physics laws that governs and regulates the universe now.

Thank you Professor......




.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah, I get that. But I think that since -57 explicitly mentioned evolving, I think it's possible that 'building blocks of life' is DNA.

Meh, whatever. If it's not specified, I'll take it to be the standard usage.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The universe does not come from nothing. The Universe was created by quantum physical laws rather then the classic physics laws that governs and regulates the universe now.

Krauss doesn't mean 'nothing' as in the absence of anything, that would be absurd - he means 'nothing' as in empty spacetime.

There are also some interesting (if somewhat unsatisfying) 'no-boundary' proposals, that have time as a property of the universe, starting (and potentially ending) with the universe, so the universe itself doesn't start or come from anywhere, it just is, no 'external' or preceding cause required or possible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Krauss doesn't mean 'nothing' as in the absence of anything, that would be absurd - he means 'nothing' as in empty spacetime.

Nothing would be a black hole, space is not empty, it it was then the universe would be shrinking not expanding. The universe has a beginning and a end. You can not say: "It just is" unless there were no beginning and no end.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing would be a black hole

A black hole isn't nothing, it's pretty much the extreme opposite - the most dense concentration of matter there can be.

space is not empty, it it was then the universe would be shrinking not expanding.

Krauss is talking about empty spacetime prior to the emergence of the universe as we know it; popular hypotheses are quantum fluctuation and the 'empty spacetime is unstable' idea.

The universe has a beginning and a end. You can not say: "It just is" unless there were no beginning and no end.

It all depends on your perspective. With no-boundary proposals, time is an intrinsic property of the universe, only existing for restricted (i.e. timelike) viewpoints. In such a model, the universe itself has no start or end point in time because, in a sense, time starts and ends within the universe - for a simplified description of the canonical no-boundary model, the original Hartle-Hawking model (which is now thought to be incorrect) is described in The No-Boundary Proposal. Note that when they talk about imaginary time, they mean it in the mathematical sense of imaginary numbers (i.e. based on the square root of -1), not imaginary as in a product of the imagination.

 

[-57]

I'll bet you will really enjoy reading;
Krauss, Lawrence
2012 “A Universe From Nothing” New York: Free Press

I've sceen video of larry. He's pretty much incompetent....and requires something...yet seems to deny it is there. Larry is quite a joke.

 

[-57]

I don't know how the universe came into being, no one does, but I do know an imagined entity didn't create it.

That would be true. An imagines entity didn't create it. A real entity did.
Your problem continues to exist when you suggest the universed banged into being out of nothing.

 

[-57]

So you can't summarize his argument in your own words. Got it.

I'm really surprised you're actually taking it this far...the video shows him cutting the bones and fitting them together in a way inwhich they were not. The video shows him commiting fraud.

 

[-57]

As I guessed, well, if you are not open to the posibility of being wrong then you are not interested in an honest debate either.

I'm still waiting for "you" and honest debate being in the same sentence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Here's a fraud I'm sure you'll enjoy.

Skip to the 4:50 min mark...then the fraud is exposed at the 6:18 min mark.

Your video misrepresents what was done. It ignores the evidence that the Lucy's hip was constructed correctly, and ignores the other bones found of the same species as Lucy. Finally the quote at the end of the video is taken completely out of context. The person quoted was not trying to say what he is represented as saying.

So where is the fraud here? I would say it was the man in your video that is fraudulent. See