Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Since life evolves from mass, gods evolve from life. 
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
wrong.
i am evidence of life coming from life.
yes, that would be a logical and reasonable ASSUMPTION.
you know, science has been hard at work on this for at least 50 years AND they have the final product to work from.
in my opinion science HAS NO CLUE where to start.
what came first? the ability to divide?
the protoplasm?
well, whatever the reason, science has yet to duplicate it from the elements.
in my opinion, all of the elements of the living cell must come together all at once.
See, now, what have I said to you before about cherry picking:
Here's what I said in full:
You've cherry picked part of my statement and presented it out of context, effectively constructing a strawman.
Here's what I said in full:
Now please, address it in full. Or are you avoiding addressing the last part because it's too hard?
Science has shown that simple forces (lightning, solar energy) can form complex organic molecules from simple elements.
Science has shown that complex organic molecules (RNA) can replicate indefinitely and inherit mutations, the two most important characteristics of early life.
(BTW the "cell" probably came much later.)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But is that not an argument of "irreducible complexity"? That model (assumption) has been proven false.
Irreversible
If he had the evidence for his posits in the form of mathematics why in the world would he be banned? That would be awesome to have some idea presented here that had a mathematical evidence. You realize that everyone here who has crazy ideas that they cannot backup with evidence (mathematical or otherwise) and are not banned.
People gennerally get banned because they are acting like a dick. If their ideas do not rise to the level of science they may be asked to post in the fringe section but they won't be banned for that alone.
yes, it seems like that is the case, another assumption.
the thing is trippy, we do not have ANY direct evidence of the origins of the universe.
what panspermia?
i don't believe there is any direct evidence of THAT either.
all of this is besides the point.
the fact still remains that given the final product science has been UNABLE to replicate it.
yes, yes, yes, science produced some amino acids and protienes.
but not life.
in my opinion the notion is so absurd as to defy description.
the cell is the minimum form of life.
unless you want to direct me to something different.
Your post sounds rather aggressively paranoid dmoe.....why is that? Sour grapes?
But to address the question at hand......Your agenda has lead you up the garden path.
We are speaking of life in general, and whether it originated on Earth or was carried to Earth by other means is not the question at hand.
Either way, its quite evident that life certainly had to arise from non life.
Evidence supporting that theory is the fact that the stuff of life is everywhere we look in the Universe.
That plus the homegenious and Isotropic nature of the observable Universe, and the fact that the early Universe was obviously Impossible for life, leads to that logical assumption.
Unless of course you prefer to believe in the divine creation myth.
So as you should now be able to see, Panspermia certainly is an example of life arising from non life.
I think it was the great educator Carl Sagan who said, "We were all born in the belly of stars"...or words to that effect.
As any reasonable sane human being can see, [1] I am not wrong, [2] my ranting, raving and stomping of feet remark that you seem to find objectionable, was in reply to a similar post thus......
which sadly you seemed to have missed....and[4] If I am wrong, I will admit it, a quality you seem to lack.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
So to create life it takes time. What's that? How much time does it take to create life, you ask? Billions of years!
...and yet you seem to expect science to do it in one episode of the Big Bang Theory? Come on! Aren't you asking a little too much of Sheldon and gang?
?? Science has produced self-replicating molecules that exhibit the very basic requirements of life (reproduction.)
Or unreasonable agenda laden people with an insatiable fanatical urge to show mainstream science is wrong, are unable to see the forest for the trees.
You don't see Panspermia as being life arising from non life?
So you believe it's turtles all the way down?
You must then also refute the BB/INflationary theory of Universal evolution?
Because that tells us the early Universe was Impossible for life.
So, how old are you?
But there is! You are here, I'm here, and the rest of this planet is teaming with life...Unless you prefer to accept the non scientific myth of divine creation?
He does have company though......
But, yeah, it's nothing short of amazing that these silly anti mainstreamers ask for proof, and yet offer nothing in return.
At the risk of repeating myself, Life from non life in our Universe, is actually the only scientific theory worth considering, based on the evidence we do have.
That is an extremely silly thing to say.
Hawking being the man he is, and aligning with the scientific method, he would have evidence of whatever he was proposing.
Alternative hypothesis fail here for a couple of reasons....
[1] If someone did have a valid, viable alternative hypothesis in regards to the origin of life, or cosmology, do you really believe he would come to a public science forum?
[2] Most are driven by an over-inflated ego, and a desire to show they are able to think for themselves, and wear that like a badge of honour, despite centuries of mainstream and the shoulders of giants.
[3] Delusions of grandeur, tall poppy syndrome.
I'm still waiting though for an alternative hypothesis to life arising from non life.
Do you have one?
Not really....The Universe was inhospitable to any life, in fact the early Universe only consisted of space/time.
Uhh? But you obviously have noidea as to how? Then you have nothing.
Uhh??? again. What is this fundamental property? Life certainly arose from inanimate matter through chemical processes etc, but I don't believe that is a property of matter.
How long do you expect me to sit on my chair before it comes to life?
If there was a God, the obvious scientific question is, who created him, etc etc etc.
And of course invoking God is not a scientific theory anyway.
So once again, we only have one viable theory as to how life arose...And that is obviously it arose from non life.
NB: You use the word "SOMEHOW" in all your hypothetical alternatives...no evidence no nothing else.
Now that makes perfect sense!
paddoboy, from your Post #531 :
Paddoboy, you present “the fact that the early Universe was obviously Impossible for life”.
Then, from your Post # 534 :
Paddoboy, you propose a “theory…that tells us the early Universe was Impossible for life.”
Fact...? or Theory...? Which is it...?
Paddoboy, you present “the fact that the early Universe was obviously Impossible for life”.
Then, from your Post # 534 :
Paddoboy, you propose a “theory…that tells us the early Universe was Impossible for life.”
Fact...? or Theory...? Which is it...?
I have told you countless times, that any scientific theory is just that. It is not fact.....You should know that.
But also quite logically and sensibly, as any theory continues to stand up to the rigours of peer review and more and more observations, it becomes more and more concrete in its acceptance.
The BB/Inflationary theory is one of those, along with SR, GR and the Evolution of life.
Based on that near certainty, it's reasonable to assume the Universe was inhospitable to life.
Now if you have a different view, or any evidence falsifying any of the above, or a new hypothesis, then spit it out boy!
Stop beating around the bush!
Or is this just more of your futile childish attempt to catch me out again...Is it a continued sour grapes approach?
Have I convinced you Panspermia also logically is life from non life.