CO2 is not the cause of heat upon mass.
Are you a tin hatter that expects me to address global warming?
Are you a tin hatter that expects me to address global warming?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I get it. You have never observed such a comprehensive question.It's a bit daft to demand of someone what "causes heat", when heat is an end product of so many physical processes.
That's a joke right? Motion to elements is your heat but you have no idea what causes it?Almost all forms of energy end up converted to heat eventually.
Dont give a hoot. A monkey can comprehend thermodynamics.It's obvious from what he or she has posted that @Pogo has a good grasp of thermodynamics.
Of course 'woo' to the uneducated that do not maintain the phenomena of nature as relevant. For example: the earth's magnetosphere is based on em fields, not an ozone layerWhereas this waffle of yours about "resonance" looks like woo to me, unless you are specifically referring to absorption of radiation by matter.
The answer does not lay in the chemistry. It lays in the possibilities and impossibilities that control the forces that control the chemistry. And so far we humans have no clue about that.
There is evidence that suggest that possibility.
Like i explained previously
Is there any possibility that can describe the forces as guided and not automatic and blind?
I don't know how i would connect what you said about Tour and the second part.While James Tour is a chemist, he is not biologist, nor biochemist, so something like Abiogenesis would be outside of his area of expertise.
Abiogenesis is more than just about the origin of early life, it is also about the origins of biochemical molecules, such as amino acids in proteins, molecules in nucleotide (eg ribose or deoxyribose sugars, nucleobase molecules, phosphate group, etc) of nucleic acids. How they form in the first place, should provide insights as to how cells.
Of course 'woo' to the uneducated that do not maintain the phenomena of nature as relevant. For example: the earth's magnetosphere is based on em fields, not an ozone layer
I don't know how to understand your question , but whateverWhat exactly are those “forces” you are talking?
They have the ability to do so.How do you know that this unspecified “forces” as “…guided and not automatic and blind”?
I made i mistake , it was not correctly stated , i apologize.You wrote “There is evidence that suggest the possibility”. If that were true, then where are your evidence?
PureX has a point. The chemical model as written has many holes in it. Not that a magical outside force is causing life of molecules but that the abiogenesis modeling is still suspect based on the lack of scope of how the energy itself is progressing to enable a living system to operate on it's own accord.And what “forces” are those, PureX?
I hoped that you are not thinking it’s God, Creator or Designer? Because if you are, then you need to demonstrate that such entities exist at all, then you would have to demonstrate clear connections between that imaginary entity is controlling chemistry.
To date, no creationists have been able to demonstrate that their beliefs in invisible being controlling anything. It is all just personal beliefs in superstitions, and superstitions (eg the “God did it” or the “Designer did it” are superstitions) are based on utter ignorance and misplaced fear.
What do you think proteins and nucleic acids are made of?
They are made of molecules, molecules that are “biological“, but like every molecules, they can broken down into atoms. Hence, understanding cells require understanding biochemistry and molecular biology, but essentially biological molecules are all based on understanding chemistry.
And as to Abiogenesis, understanding chemistry, especially in the fields of molecular biology and biochemistry are essential.
While James Tour is a chemist, he is not biologist, nor biochemist, so something like Abiogenesis would be outside of his area of expertise.
Abiogenesis is more than just about the origin of early life, it is also about the origins of biochemical molecules, such as amino acids in proteins, molecules in nucleotide (eg ribose or deoxyribose sugars, nucleobase molecules, phosphate group, etc) of nucleic acids. How they form in the first place, should provide insights as to how cells.
While Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, it is still based on our current understanding of molecular biology & biochemistry.
What I don’t understand why are you are so insistent in ignoring chemistry? And why are so insistent on some unnamed and unsubstantiated “forces”?
No i am defending myself from the woo, that have no idea what they are writing.You are making strawman arguments.
No. I am having to defend myself from the random rubbish that the woo keep making.Who have claimed that ozone layer being the cause of Earth’s EM fields? Can you a single scientific source where someone is saying ozone layer being the source of Earth’s magnetic fields?
OK, i used the method of the whackado. Sorry that i have had to lower my standards to expose the fools.You are attacking strawman…blaming scientists for something they never say.
There is one now.I don’t think you even understand where the magnetic fields are coming from.
Thanks. Have you ever wound your own coils? Ever make a motor, transformer from scratch?The poles?
The Earth’s magnetic poles are only the outcome of the fields, not the actual source of the fields.
Do you know what causes the pole reversals?The source of the fields come from the Earth’s outer core, where molten iron and nickel flow in liquid form. The flow, or more precisely the convective current, of iron and nickel are what causing induction of magnetic fields. That’s what generating magnetic fields in the Earth’s dipole.
Just like you are about telling me about the magnetosphere. I point out that em fields exists on all mass whether detectable or not simply by the oscillation of the em upon that mass.unless you can present sources about the ozone layer, you are merely making dishonest claims and bl someone else for your own invention.
Just because it is more simple to say 'automatic and blind'(to avoid more complex questions) does not mean that automatic and blind is neccessary true.
I don't know how to understand your question , but whatever
I apologized for making false statement.You have misunderstood what I am saying.
I am not advocating “automatic and blind” over ”guided”…nor vice versa, Dim95. I am the one advocating one side or the other, you are doing that.
And you are the one who is making such claim, without presenting a single evidence to support your claim.
Ok , as soon as you asked , i answered.I was asking for clarification.
You were unspecific as to what these “forces” are, Dim95.
Saying “forces” without specific is what causing my confusion as to what you mean by this.
But at some point as explained before , we come to talk about advocating based on evidence , and we can't do that in specific topics , so at the end you can just ignore it , or you can rely on faith.In sciences, they explain a number of different forces, with explanations as to how such forces work for each one. In religions, they have their own ideas as to what forces exist, but they offered nothing but superstitions, not explanations.
I will learn to be more specific.you, on the other hand, being very vague. Hence, my question to be more specific as to which forces you are talking about.
my question to you was ask for some clarification to your vague claim.
OK, you offered some points I find very helpful (interesting). When you say you rely on faith, so do I, to a large extent, because I know and believe that God exists. OK, that is my belief. Do I KNOW in the scientific sense? I claim the apostle Paul as an example. Some thought he was crazy, out of his mind. Some didn't believe his account.I apologized for making false statement.
It is not evidence based to advocate any of them.
Rather , i will rely on faith.
Ok , as soon as you asked , i answered.
But at some point as explained before , we come to talk about advocating based on evidence , and we can't do that in specific topics , so at the end you can just ignore it , or you can rely on faith.
Or Am i wrong?
I will learn to be more specific.
Thanks. Have you ever wound your own coils? Ever make a motor, transformer from scratch?
Do you know what causes the pole reversals?
I claim the apostle Paul as an example. Some thought he was crazy, out of his mind. Some didn't believe his account.
I honestly did not need a historian to certify what the Bible says. Although I know there are certain writings and/or artifacts that support what is written. I had a Bible in the house before I became a Christian, I did not understand it at all, and for a long time I said I did not believe in God because of all the riffraff I saw around me. As I have stated, I often was in a church as a paid church singer, heard the sermons, never believed a word of it. Until the time came that I finally prayed. The song "Amazing Grace" is one I love because I think it applies to me -- I love it. Even if the person singing it might not believe in God, still the song is close to my heart. God saved a wretch like me...I like the following version --You need to know how to handle History and to be consistent on what is Historically accurate and what is not , if you want any Atheist/Agnostic to ever consider your claim reasonable.
Yes , it requires faith also , but it is still hard to reject History, so speaking about History is the best way to talk with certain groups of people.
For a motor, no.
For power amplifier, then yes, I have made a transformer before.
your points?
I have no ideas what cause it, as I have not done any research on this phenomena.
What I do know is that they have occurred in the past, where the direction of polarity reversal are imprinted in ancient igneous rocks. So when they have occurred can be measured.
Ask @shunyadragon , as he is a geologist, so he might know more.
So you must understand the fields as that is what is causing the transforming.For a motor, no.
For power amplifier, then yes, I have made a transformer before.
your points?
The basalts. And yes about every 600k years.I have no ideas what cause it, as I have not done any research on this phenomena.
What I do know is that they have occurred in the past, where the direction of polarity reversal are imprinted in ancient igneous rocks. So when they have occurred can be measured.
I think he posted aboveAsk @shunyadragon , as he is a geologist, so he might know more.
It is indeed best to dump the opening debate reference and deal with the actual science of abiogenesis. The present knowledge is indeed incomplete, but there is a great deal of knowledge concerning the ground work on where and how abiogenesis likely took place,Thanks for that link...enjoyed a bit of the discussion...the best contributions were from neither Cronin nor Tour who seemed to be most concerned about outscoring each other in a more-or-less-politely-phrased insult competition. I think Larry Constantine made the most insightful remark about 2/3rds of the way in when he talked about Prigogine and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I'm pretty sure that's where the best clues as to the origin of life (and indeed complexity more generally) will emerge from.