Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Saru

Something from nothing

15 posts in this topic

Something from nothing

2.jpg

Click here to watch video - 00:23s

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins talks with theoretical physicist and author Lawrence Krauss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is amazing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is strange that he should say that religious believe are crazy when the title of this video is "Something from Nothing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is strange that he should say that religious believe are crazy when the title of this video is "Something from Nothing".

:w00t:

Get back with us when you watch the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

:w00t:

Get back with us when you watch the video.

I watch the whole thing. Did you?

Edited by Xpeople

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kraus Dawkins etc just jokers man. But a philosopher of science in this conversation or dialogue and they we can get some where!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watch the whole thing. Did you?

Yep,and I have the book on order. I also got to attend a talk he gave in October which touched on the subject as well.

So,what's your argument over the science he presents?

Kraus Dawkins etc just jokers man. But a philosopher of science in this conversation or dialogue and they we can get some where!

Krauss has a Doctor in Philosophy (PhD) and works as a physicist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep,and I have the book on order. I also got to attend a talk he gave in October which touched on the subject as well.

So,what's your argument over the science he presents?

Krauss has a Doctor in Philosophy (PhD) and works as a physicist.

Lawrence Krauss is taking science too far. He saying that the whole universe came from nothing any different then the bible say that God spoke the earth into existence. He say that there was a process but what is the process? God spoke and the earth come into existence that is a process, too.

Here is a video to help explain what I am talking about.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CVnJRfCSSEQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... so what is your critique of the observation that in a vacuum particles spontaneously generate out of nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... so what is your critique of the observation that in a vacuum particles spontaneously generate out of nothing?

That is the problem with Lawrence's view. Is there has been no observation of this phenomena? He also goes on to say life came from nonliving matter but there has been no observation to support that, too. It is not that evolution is wrong but there are questions that remain to be answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is the problem with Lawrence's view. Is there has been no observation of this phenomena? He also goes on to say life came from nonliving matter but there has been no observation to support that, too. It is not that evolution is wrong but there are questions that remain to be answer.

I believe it was a chap by the name of Miller who first condiucted experiments using non-living matter to create amino acids, which form the building blocks of life. These experiments have since been reproduced by other scientists, so I believe you are wrong on that one.

edit...did a quick check ...From Wiki

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition than the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]

Edited by Englishgent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was a chap by the name of Miller who first condiucted experiments using non-living matter to create amino acids, which form the building blocks of life. These experiments have since been reproduced by other scientists, so I believe you are wrong on that one.

edit...did a quick check ...From Wiki

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition than the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]

You do not have to go that far to show that animo acids can be created. Organic mater has been found in interstellar but organic matter and life are too seperate items. Many of the drugs we use are organic but they are not life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have to go that far to show that animo acids can be created. Organic mater has been found in interstellar but organic matter and life are too seperate items. Many of the drugs we use are organic but they are not life.

Amino acids are the building blocks of life. Life would not exist without them. Miller's experiments merely proved that these building blocks can be made from non-organic materials, which is what you are disputing I think. If that is the case then you are wrong :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amino acids are the building blocks of life. Life would not exist without them. Miller's experiments merely proved that these building blocks can be made from non-organic materials, which is what you are disputing I think. If that is the case then you are wrong :)

I am not disputing anything you said. You are not wrong but the experiment did go far enough. It did not produce life. Amino acids is the building blocks but is not life. The experiment only show how amino acid could have been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.