For the alternative theorists:

[origin]

Fact...? or Theory...? Which is it...?

For someone like you and leopold who have no science education you should consider it a fact, for people who have some science education we would consider it a theory.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, you propose a “theory…that tells us the early Universe was Impossible for life.”

Fact...? or Theory...? Which is it...?

:BLUSH:

You give me too much credit dmoe.
It's not my theory......I'm just standing tippy toe on the shoulders of giants.

 

[leopold]

So to create life it takes time. What's that? How much time does it take to create life, you ask? Billions of years!

it's never been done before, another assumption.

...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?

there is ZERO evidence as to how long it takes for life to form from the elements.

 

[paddoboy]

there is ZERO evidence as to how long it takes for life to form from the elements.

Bingo!!!! Nice to see that you have come around to a logical and sensible take on things.

Of course also, its obvious that it took life less then 13 billion years to form from the elements.

 

[leopold]

?? Science has produced self-replicating molecules that exhibit the very basic requirements of life (reproduction.)

and?
it's a VERY far cry from life billvon

 

[billvon]

and?
it's a VERY far cry from life billvon

I disagree. Something that self-replicates is the most basic definition of life. Everything else is just an add-on.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I have told you countless times, that any scientific theory is just that. It is not fact.....You should know that.

Regardless, paddoboy, of what you Preach - "countless times" - you seem to Practice stating theory as fact!

To Wit - paddoboy, from your Post #531 :

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.

Paddoboy, you present “the fact that the early Universe was obviously Impossible for life”.

Have I convinced you Panspermia also logically is life from non life.

No, paddoboy, you have not.

 

[paddoboy]

Regardless, paddoboy, of what you Preach - "countless times" - you seem to Practice stating theory as fact!

Your limited acceptance of mainstream science and agenda are leading you up the garden path.
If the BB/Inflationary model theory is reality as we see it, and as is overwhelmingly most likely, than it follows that it would certainly be a fact, that the early Universe was inhospitable to life.

No, paddoboy, you have not.

Sure I have convinced you...[nudge nudge, wink, wink] It's common sense and logic...Unless you chose the unscientific creation mythology.
We were all [Earthlings of all types, and Alien cultures throughout the Universe] born in the belly of stars.

 

[leopold]

I disagree. Something that self-replicates is the most basic definition of life. Everything else is just an add-on.

the most basic form of life is the living cell.
a string of atoms doesn't even come close to this billvon, you can disagree all you want.

 

[leopold]

Your limited acceptance of mainstream science and agenda are leading you up the garden path.

huh?
science and agenda?

 

[paddoboy]

the most basic form of life is the living cell.
a string of atoms doesn't even come close to this billvon, you can disagree all you want.

Forgetting all your "somehow" explanations, and the non scientific God myth explanation, please explain how life came to be?
As you are unable to answer that question, or offer any alternative hypothesis with an ounce of support, I put it to you, that you are the one that is disagreeing all you want, in the face of logic and evidence.
You wouldn't possibly be a closet creationist would you?

 

[leopold]

Forgetting all your "somehow" explanations, and the non scientific God myth explanation, please explain how life came to be?

good question.
stop with the "god myth explanation" shit.
i never explained ANYTHING about a "god myth"

As you are unable to answer that question, or offer any alternative hypothesis with an ounce of support, I put it to you, that you are the one that is disagreeing all you want, in the face of logic and evidence.
You wouldn't possibly be a closet creationist would you?

you don't know much about statistics do you.

 

[billvon]

the most basic form of life is the living cell.

The most basic form of life currently existing, at least. Something that grows and reproduces that does not have a cell membrane would be considered alive, even though it didn't have a cell membrane.

a string of atoms doesn't even come close to this billvon, you can disagree all you want.

We're all just strings of atoms. We differ only in complexity from archaea.

 

[paddoboy]

good question.
stop with the "god myth explanation" shit.
i never explained ANYTHING about a "god myth"

Sure you did! But that's OK, there's still no reason to be a closet creationist.
Be open and up front!

there are a number of possibilities.
1. life is infinite, it has always been here, somehow a product of an infinite universe.
2. life is somehow connected with quantum physics.
3. matter has a fundamental property called "life"
4. there is a god, although i can't picture an intelligence without substance.

All that above nonsense was answered individually.

you don't know much about statistics do you.

But I can certainly confidently worm out those with alternative agendas, delusions of grandeur, and useless anti mainstream stances, just for the sake of it.

 

[origin]

the most basic form of life is the living cell.
a string of atoms doesn't even come close to this billvon, you can disagree all you want.

I don't know about that. A virus is just a 'string of atoms (DNA or RNA) in a protein covering. It can be argued if a virus is alive but strangely enough there is no doubt that it can be killed. life is not as clear cut as you think.

 

[Write4U]

the cell is the minimum form of life.
unless you want to direct me to something different.

Yes, but a cell is not an irreducible complex system. We need to explain how a complex living cell evolved from simpler chemical actions and interactions. We need to begin with chemical elements, which should not be controversial.

From wiki,

In chemistry, a chemical substance is a form of matter that has constant chemical composition and characteristic properties.[1] It cannot be separated into components by physical separation methods, i.e. without breaking chemical bonds. It can be solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

Some of these elements are instrumental in the formation of "amino acids". The key elements of an amino acid are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.

They are particularly important in biochemistry, where the term usually refers to alpha-amino acids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance#Chemical_compounds

Proteins (/ˈproʊˌtiːnz/ or /ˈproʊti.ɨnz/) are large biological molecules, or macromolecules, consisting of one or more long chains of amino acid residues. Proteins perform a vast array of functions within living organisms, including catalyzing metabolic reactions, replicating DNA, responding to stimuli, and transporting molecules from one location to another. Proteins differ from one another primarily in their sequence of amino acids, which is dictated by the nucleotide sequence of their genes, and which usually results in folding of the protein into a specific three-dimensional structure that determines its activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein#Structure_determination

The proteinogenic amino acids have been found to be related to the set of amino acids that can be recognized by ribozyme auto-aminoacylation systems.[2] Thus, non-proteinogenic amino acids would have been excluded by the contingent evolutionary success of nucleotide-based life forms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinogenic_amino_acid

IMO, the above demonstrates that the "coding system" for living cells emerges from the biochemical interactions, and therefore are not irreducible systems, and does not require a predetermined intelligent design.

 

[leopold]

I don't know about that. A virus is just a 'string of atoms (DNA or RNA) in a protein covering.

viruses aren't considered life.

life is not as clear cut as you think.

i've alluded to this before.
the best possible answer i can come up with is the living cell.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I have told you countless times, that any scientific theory is just that. It is not fact.....You should know that.

Your limited acceptance of mainstream science and agenda are leading you up the garden path.
If the BB/Inflationary model theory is reality as we see it, and as is overwhelmingly most likely, than it follows that it would certainly be a fact, that the early Universe was inhospitable to life.

paddoboy, there is just so much wrong with that statement!

I have told you countless times, that any scientific theory is just that. It is not fact.....You should know that.

Goodbye, paddoboy.

 

[Write4U]

viruses aren't considered life.

i've alluded to this before.
the best possible answer i can come up with is the living cell.

But is that not a strawman argument?

IMO, the whole point is that life can emerge (evolve) from non-living chemical compounds. A virus IS a perfect example of that argument.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, there is just so much wrong with that statement!

You think so? Well considering your blinkered attitude, and not being able to see the forest for the trees, especially where I am concerned, and as noted by others, I'll accept your criticism with a grain of salt.
Okey dokey dmoe?

Goodbye, paddoboy.

Bye dmoe! Seeya again, same time, same station.