jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (40 posts)

It's all about Chemistry

  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago

    So what does Chemistry have anything to do with  astrophysics, specifically the beginning of the universe as proposed in that Big Bang of a theory. PLENTY it turns out. As proposed by chemists at the Free University of Brussels, the first molecule that formed the universe, even before molecular hydrogen was Helium Hydride, a pairing of  Helium atom and a proton from a hydrogen atom. From then on the chemical composition started to become more complex and as the stars formed, and disintegrated, new chemicals were born out of that cauldron, that then led to life being created, at least as far as we know, on earth. Sentience and intelligence soon followed in accordance  to the rhyme( mandated natural laws) that governed time on earth.

    Chemical interactions  that if left on their own devices (un-mandated by natural laws), would and could never lead to the formation of sentient and intelligent beings. Life  with rhyme and reason.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Helium hydride is an interesting compound if indeed it does exist (and signs are positive there).  But I'm not sure what it has to do with intelligence, unless you're merely saying it was among the first compounds, compounds that all form according to natural "laws".

      I'm also completely lost in how sentience "governs" time on earth.  Can you explain further?

      Chemical interactions that are not mandated by natural laws never exist at all - is that what you're trying to say at the end?  You completely lost me there.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Natural Laws did not create themselves, anymore than the universe created itself.  One could thus surmise that these laws were promulgated by an intelligent entity... laws that are necessary to keep the rhythmic passage of time on earth,  from the sub-atomic to the cosmic moving to a pre-determined conclusion.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Natural Laws did not create themselves, anymore than the universe created itself"

          Nice statement, great opinion, wonderful philosophy, but all without any evidence whatsoever to support it.  The natural reaction, then, to the statement that follows (because laws did not create themselves, there has to be an intelligent entity that DID create them is automatically logically flawed: with an false premise to build upon we cannot know if the conclusion is true or false. 

          None of which, as far as I can see, has anything to do with the HHe molecule any more than anything else that has ever happened.  Without the ability of hydrogen to fuse we wouldn't be here, but that doesn't prove a god, either.  Nor does the affinity of carbon to form 4 chemical bonds, the gravitational constant or anything else science as found.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So from your argument you are saying that Natural Laws created themselves? Really?

            If natural laws created themselves why on heaven's name did they create themselves?

            If natural laws created themselves, then they should not have anything to apply themselves to.

            Laws by their nature are purposeful.... otherwise they could not and should not be labeled Laws.

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Um, can we address your first point before wandering off after another?

              What are you actually saying about Helium Hydride?

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Helium Hydride as per the astrophysicists-chemists that I referred to in my OP suggested that Helium hydride is the precursor of Hydrogen, which if I'm not misinterpreting their research,  existed first as a proton before it became a fully interactive Hydrogen atom. Interesting to say the least. When hydrogen became an atom, it was then free to interact with Helium in some other mechanism, that is not related to the Helium Hydride. This  then initiated the cascading events that led to stars forming --->exploding  into  stardusts , that over billions of years came to settle into a planet, we now call earth (home) situated in the Goldilock zone of a solar system situated in the far fringes of a galaxy called milky way.

                As the noted astrophysicist Carl Sagan would say, we are all made of stardust. That long journey could not have happened the way it happened without being directed by intelligence. The probability of that journey being undirected and unmitigated (by the Laws of Nature) is non-existent.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I don't pretend to know or understand it - ask the pre-eminent physicists and cosmologists for an answer.  It shouldn't take more than a decade or so of hard study to understand the answer, but it's better than making one up simply because it agrees with an unfounded belief.

              "Why" implies an intelligence in the formation; something we already know was not necessary.  The statement, then, is much like the (unsupported) statement that a god did it all.  A logical fallacy.

              "Purpose" also implies an intelligence in the formation; something we already know was not necessary.  The statement, then, is much like the (unsupported) statement that a god did it all.  Also a logical fallacy, then.

              Perhaps you misunderstand the use of the word "law" as used in the legal system and in the natural sciences?  They are not the same or we would see cops arresting photons for violating the speed limit of C.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Certainly news to me that intelligence, as you are stating flatly,  was not necessary in the creation of the universe and all the laws that governs its existence. So why would a non-intelligent process produce laws and in the process of those laws being applied to the material components of that  universe, produce  a material entity such as yourself who nonetheless is sentient and intelligent that  now boldly and baldly  claims that intelligence could come from non-intelligence.

                Somehow I missed the process,  be they physiologic or pathologic, of your translation and transformation  from non-intelligence to intelligence.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Why?  Why does a falling rock make a landslide that dams a river and forever changes the river bed?  You are again assuming an intelligence behind the "why" when there is no indication there ever was one.

                  As far as it being news to you, that can only be because you made up a story (or accepted a pre-made one as true) that gave an explanation without ever investigating whether or not it was true.  Look within yourself if you want to know why that happened.

                  Intelligence always comes from non-intelligence.  Or are you now claiming that the bundle of chemicals in a zygote is intelligent?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The cellular components of a zygote when fully differentiated and integrated into a complex  systems of tissues and organs functioning as a unified entity  then becomes  fully functional, sentient, and intelligent. Thus the potential is there,  and having that potential for intelligence is  the  essential ingredient... it is  what separates it from any other i.e. falling rock, a flowing river, a grain of salt.

              2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You seem to know a lot about what you term as the "natural sciences", which in that purview you seem to say that Laws do not have any regulatory impositions, as the Laws that are existing  in the legal sciences have.

                So now are you proposing that Laws of Nature NOT be  termed as such and should be called something totally different..... and from your naturalistic perspective, what TERM  should be used to aptly described those regulatory conditions that nature impose on all of us.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm quite satisfied with the term "law", and find no reason to change it.  Most words in the English language have multiple meanings when there are multiple topics/circumstances involved - that there is one more doesn't upset me.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    @wilderness:
                    Webster succinctly and aptly defined Law as "a rule of conduct or action established, laid down, and enforced by a governing entity/authority; additionally, laws are rules or principles stating something that always works in the same way under the same conditions.

                    Definition that fits  the Laws of Nature to a "T"

                    Now I would be very interested on how you interpret Laws of Nature in its essence and functionality.

              3. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                @wilderness:
                What you term "unfounded belief" is nothing more than the collective impressions of thinking and intuiting, and percepting humans who over the lifespan of their specie came to the conclusion RATIONALLY and LOGICALLY that everything has a cause, every rhyme has a reason, and every beginning has an ending. CAUSE>>>REASON>>>CONCLUSION. So rational, so logical.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Unfortunately the sequence goes WANT>>>IMAGINE>>>CAUSE>>>CONSLUSION, skipping the reason and declaring cause without reason or even observation at all.  That never seems particularly "rational", but it is what has produced the whole religion thing from day one.  That and a desire to control the masses, anyway.

                  Certainly the "LOGICAL" part is left out: there is absolutely nothing logical about declaring the existence of another universe populated by a specific entity with specific attributes and actions, all founded on the desire for such a being.  Yes, it has a foundation, I suppose, in the desires and wants of the believer but it's a foundation made of sand rather that fact and reason.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?
                    Religion is used to control the masses?

                    Now who do you think is delusional?

                  2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    @wilderness: BTW your sequence, ie Want>>>Imagine>>>>Cause>>>Conclusion  defied gravity because it went  up the ether the moment you formulated it.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @wilderness:
            The ability of Hydrogen to "fuse" or the affinity of carbon to "form 4 bonds" are all non-directed predisposition. If you are telling me that Hydrogen and Carbon have those inate predisposition, who put those inate predisposition. Certainly not the Hydrogen or Carbon atoms themselves. Because if you say that they did it on their own, then halleluiah, Hydrogen and Carbon could be considered  life forms on their own capable of  deciding/choosing their own path and destiny.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I meant to say :... all  directed predisposition..."

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "...who put those inate predisposition"

                No one.  Unless you have evidence someone or something did?  Beyond, that is, merely putting forth the unsupported claim that they HAD to?  It is true that you seem to have the predisposition that your unsupported opinion that an god created everything, but there is to date no reason to think it is true.  After all, you cannot support it with anything but your observation that in YOUR comprehension of the (macro) world everything has a cause.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Now you are begging the issue....

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Only if you insist that someone or something did it.  If, on the other hand, you accept the notion (given by all the pre-eminent physicists of the world) that there was no god necessary there is no problem.  Not, of course, that that opinion denies a god; merely that it denies the necessity of one.

                2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Na and Cl 's predisposition to fuse or to bond was mandated by nature giving them different atomic weights and charges (either + or -) So what we might term inate were not self-imposed or self-directed  by these atoms... they were given by the nature and its laws , so it could regulate them in ways that are appropriate to prevailing conditions.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    Helium Hydride? Was there a point there at all?

    because if you just want another dull creationism fracas, well, that's not very interesting because we have all done it a million times and there is nothing new to be said about it.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I have no delusions about where you are coming from...."dull creationism fracas" and all.

      There is or are always something new to say about anything that might come to your mind, but I suppose, you having been  involved in all that fracas, your debating points have become so dull and so eroded.

 
working