On The Impossibility Of Abiogenesis.

Which according to Boyle's gas law would drive the hydrogen away before their gravity can take over.

See above. Shoulda looked down further before responding.

Actually, we've never seen a star form.

Ok.

 

Wait a minute!!

You posted...this..."Which according to Boyle's gas law would drive the hydrogen away before their gravity can take over."..end quote Maccabbe.

Please explain how the reality of Boyle's Law in anyways applies to or would interfere with Hydrogen Gas or H2 being collected in large masses via Gravitation to eventually form Stars???

AA

 

You say there is physical evidence of god and then switch to an arrow head?

 

No. I changed the odds in a huge way by adding locations.

Instead of just earth, a very large number of planets have been involved - in fact are involved right now.

Earth is one place where life happened, but it is not the only place with favorable conditions.

We happened on earth, of course - not on an earth-like planet where life did not happen.

 

I think you're confusing abiogenesis with creationism here. Abiogenesis doesn't say that complex living organisms randomly appeared fully formed. Now that we've shown that amino acids can self-assemble under the right conditions, we're working on how those amino acids can go on to form more complex molecules. Given that nature had a whole planet and millions of years to work with, we've learned quite a lot in just the last 100 years.

 

As they are forming, stars lose heat through radiation. So, Boyle's law has a regulating effect, but the star will still collapse due to gravity and reach nuclear ignition.

Remember that these are ideal gas laws. They come with assumptions and are routinely broken in the real world.

Once again you need a source for physics - and not your creationist folks who have such a long record of giving you false info.

 

Wait a minute!

Don't boil any water on your stove. A star may form.



(I've given you free hydrogen, heat, and gravity. Now what? )

 

That's a silly claim. If they unbound much faster than they bound, they wouldn't have found any amino acids back in 1953, and certainly not when the reexamined the samples 60 years later.

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2013/CS/c3cs35433d#!divAbstract

How is "we don't know" not an acceptable answer?

Given the shear volume of a star, it wouldn't take very many to produce the quantities we find in our own solar system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abund...lements#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Universe

Do you realize just how much gravitational force the amount of hydrogen needed to create a star would have? Boyle's law would not be a problem.

http://www.universetoday.com/24663/protostar/

You just have to keep looking long enough.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160206671X

- - - Updated - - -

Go back and take basic chemistry again. Boiling water does not produce any free hydrogen.

 

^ Absolutely correct.

BTW, two of those things are obviously missing in space.

 

I think that would be news to most physicists and astronauts.

 

Simple, as you should learn in any high school chemistry as a gas starts to collect the energy of them collecting would heat the molecules up and drive them away. It's why you don't fear clouds collecting into a ball and falling on you.

 

Just as the arrowhead is proof for the arrowhead maker, the universe if evidence for a creator.

 

The arrowhead is proof only because we have actually observed the arrowhead maker. How many universes have you observed being created?

 

We haven't seen any with all favorable conditions. All we've seen is mars with dried up river beds and planets in the Goldie locks zone.

 

But one single cell is more complexed than a space shuttle. You'll need millions of DNA coding to make it.

 

If that's the case then shouldn't clouds, especially very high ones, condense and fall to earth? Also have we observe what you said?

Like what?

It takes a lot of energy to overcome Boyle's gas law.

 

"The universe exists, therefore it was created by an all powerful, all knowing god that is proven to exist by noticing that the universe exists."

As a statement of religion I have no problem with that.

But, it seems unnecessary, since the existence of god is assumed as a first principle of religion anyway. So why bother going in circles?

Also, that still doesn't inform us of what god actually did. In fact, it gives us no knew understanding of anything at all.

I get the feeling that what you really want is for us to stop exploring.

 

Read about it (and NOT from your YEC guys who constantly give you false information).

Boyle's gas law is about ideal gas. The real world has real gas.

Boyle's law says nothing about gravity, says something about molecule size, temperature, pressure, whether the experiment is closed or open, etc.

In physics, these factors matter. As I said before, new suns emit radiation as they are aggregating. Gravity overcomes and compresses the sun, a force strong enough that it ignites the nuclear reaction.


Ask yourself this question: Why did your sources give you false information in their attempts to support your religion?

 

Ok, but there's still the other problems with it.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_121-126.pdf

It is an acceptable answer.

Ok.

Yes it would. Unless there was a blob of hydrogen that had enough gravity to begin with Boyle's gas law reigns surpreme.

All we see is a spot in the dust getting brighter. Don't ypu think there might be another explanation?

http://www.icr.org/article/study-star-formation-virtually-finished/

- - - Updated - - -



Go back and take basic chemistry again. Boiling water does not produce any free hydrogen.[/QUOTE]

 

Of course not. We should explore to our heart's content. Though things like trans humanism and genetic modification I'm against but that's for other reasons. I think a great piece of evidence for a creator is how fine tuned everything is.

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

 

If gravity can greatly overcome Boyle's gas law then clouds, smoke, dust particles, and food coloring in water should condense instead of scatter. We see it in action everyday. The only thing that doesn't scatter is our atmosphere and that's because of how big the earth is.

Have we observed that?

Assuming that they did.

 

Think about what you just said.

Earth's gravity keeps our atmosphere.

The sun has about 1/3 million times as much mass as earth. Compare mass, not diameter or volume, because gravity is proportional to mass.

I typed "how many new stars per year" into google and picked the NASA site to find that about 7 stars per year get started in our galaxy.

My goal is for YOU to do investigations like that, as it would seriously cut down on the time you struggle with nonsensical creationist versions of science.

 

Everything in the universe had a starting point. Sure, the sun today has the gravity to keep its hydrogen, but what about its beginning which we are discussing?

 

I don't find this kind of stuff at all compelling. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot we don't know about our universe. For all we know, a stupendous number of universes could have started and either failed or continued in parallel without our ability to detect them. We have essentially zero evidence of what is going on out there beyond our universe (whatever "beyond our universe" might mean). So, we ended up in a universe that worked - far more likely than ending up in a universe that did NOT work Also, these analyses rarely do anywhere near an adequate job of evaluating how independent these "tuning" parameters actually are. When barions started condensing from the big bang, does your site really understand the process of condensing electrons v. protons, etc? On the other hand, science has other questions to ADD to the list. For example, why is there so much more matter than there is anti-matter? One would think there would be the same amount of each.

Humans have always been susceptible to the argument that anything big, small, weird or catastrophic is "proof" of some supernatural being that demands that we bow to its wishes. We need to be careful with that.



To me, the really big deal is that we still get confused about what is science and what is religion. That is serious. It impacts our public policy across ALL topics and every day. We can NOT afford this confusion born of religion and low education that science is an evil backwater that must be rejected. The result is that we use unbelievably stupid logic in making key policy decisions. It becomes easy for Big Tobacco to tell us cigarettes have a clean bill of health, for Big Oil to tell us the planet isn't warming, for the Kansas legislature to sell the idea that one can cut taxes and increase revenue (a lie at the root of the GOP over the last decades), that we can compete in our new high tech economy with 5% of the world's population and LESS college, that antibacterial medication is OK to give to those with virus infections (thus speeding bacterial evolutionary progress against our key drugs), etc., etc., etc.

We can all go to church as much as we want, but if we teach our population to despise science, we WILL (and DO) pay for that.

 

Asked and answered - MORE THAN ONCE!!

AND, I told you how you can read more about it.

If you want to know physics, you will HAVE TO study that. It is NOT just free. Science is a very serious and NOT EASY discipline with years of training and experience required.

Until then, you will have to find experts in physics and you are going to have to trust them. They are NOT going to teach you physics in a conversation.