We constantly precede events of which we ignore the coming (la palissade!), But maybe janic knows the combination of the next lotto?
Not being a player, I wouldn't even look for it! But if I were a god, for whom time is only a dimension that concerns us only, the combination would have been known to me. But I am not a god… .happily!
To assert that life (or the universe) could not appear by chance, it would be necessary to have a set of universes and to carry out measurements ... and after, only afterwards it would be possible to invalidate such a possibility.
No need to get lost in spooky hypotheses. This is where it happens and this is where the answer can be found. This is what many researchers are racking their brains on… and finding nothing! Even on Mars (apart from the chocolate bar, of course!) But it occupies a few!
Given that we are present on this earth, in the absence of any visible "creator", and taking into account the observation of the phenomena surrounding us, the most probable conclusion (absolute certainties are only the domain of belief) clearly goes in the opposite direction to that of creationists.
On the contrary, we are and are only humans and our only tools are called observation and reason. However, by observation, no one has ever seen life appear from nothing, whether by chance or not. On the other hand, we ourselves are creators as our achievements of all kinds show (including the means used by scientists) and therefore creationists in fact. To take the hypothesis that all things follow the same process is to appeal to reason (logical reasoning). It is a statement, not a claim to a pseudo-scientific explanation.
For the visibility of a creator, the question has already been raised. We rub shoulders, use, lots of objects, realizations of which we will never know the authors who will remain invisible because of this. Do they not exist, however? Reason tells us not!
There it is more precise (but it is not me who invokes chance all the time since I assert that chance does not exist. Everything obeys laws) Now the principle of entropy goes from organized it into chaos and never vice versa. A new, unmaintained and protected car will rust and degrade, but not the other way around.
You make a confusion between energy dissipation and organization.
A zero entropy amounts to a dissipation of zero energy, which in our universe amounts to the "period" known as the "Big Bang", a period after which begins, according to general relativity, the arrow of time (10-43s).
Assumed since no one is able to say and describe what preceded this BB in question. (And 10> 37 degrees Celcius, it's so hot that nothing would have remained, according to our scientific knowledge)
The second principle of thermodynamics states that entropy increases, however this is not necessarily linked to "chaos".
Differences in potential are necessarily necessary to generate energy dissipative structures, we humans are part of it.
Always the same blah that only drowns the fish. Without energy there is no organization, especially if this energy dissipates. However and whatever the explanations of each other, no one can demonstrate that life appeared (was organized) coming from chaos or some entropy.
Regarding chance, as I have already explained a number of times, it is above all a popular name.
In science we will speak more readily of statistical mechanics.
Clearly all the scientists who use the word chance, are ignorant, ignoring that it is statistical mechanics? A change of formulation as a surface technician explains better what a sweeper is. But it is true that this word chance, like the word god, has been eaten with all sauces!
Sciences that know only a tiny bit about what already exists (on life) and nothing about how it can exist.
This affirmation is completely free, since here you imply an "unknown science" which would explain everything ... where is this science?
It is not a question of science unknown as unknowable, but our knowledge is only partial, we discover every day what was unknown yesterday and I am not the inventor of this formula according to which we know only in part and therefore incomplete.
Before the invention of the Geiger counter, we did not know what radioactivity was except for certain observable, but not measurable, effects on living organisms. The rational sciences that you invoke did not invent radioactivity, nor gravity, they only observed it with invented devices, there too created, therefore to know their presence and intensity. Likewise we find that this world is highly organized, obeying very precise and rigorous laws which cannot have appeared by chance.
My assertion is based on rational ... and known sciences!
In other words, not much, everything else is human pride and vanity.
Or an interpretation preceding all the others!
Creationism is only an observation that chaos does not appear to be organized and we fall back on Pasteur's experiences, on spontaneous non-generation (that's really scientific because it is verified and double-checked!)
Can you give me historical references regarding creationism?
What creationism? That of religions? I am incompetent about it.
Pasteur's experiments prove nothing, the time scales in the laboratory are far too short to be able to demonstrate anything, the initial conditions for the appearance of life are themselves unknown ...
To say the least about "
initial conditions of the appearance of life are themselves unknown ... All the more so if they are unknown (for our measuring devices and researchers of all kinds) because indeed Pasteur's experiments were laboratory experiments whose application to the real world could be falsified, but for as much no phenomenon of to date, this genre has not demonstrated the contrary. It is also just as valid for the evolutionary discourse which starts from an a priori that this life appeared "by chance", say unintentionally, even though in the current state of our knowledge it is rather the opposite which appears, namely an unsuspected complexity yet, so that this life appears like that ...! (to recall the probability calculations mentioned a long time ago.)
on the other hand in computer science, accelerated experiments.
Computer experiments give in the same way as other physical experiences like those of Pasteur or Miller; There will always be something missing or not taken into account out of ignorance
or a priori rejection. (even the Higgs boson is not a certainty!)
make it possible to clearly verify that simple laws can emerge from complexity, and from the chaos of order, and vice versa.
The laws of mechanics also bring about the founding of motors from foundries, machining and assembly centers, but not all from mining materials. Again, if our universe is well governed by rigorous cosmic laws, that at the quantum level it is the same, and that everything is perfectly orchestrated, it is not a vanity to mortgage a conductor ( what a few billion people today think, of all intellectual and scientific levels)
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
on the other hand, being yourself in the "TOP TEN", I find you rather daring ^^
