For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
i'm sorry.
i should have told you to find them yourself and to keep up with the discussion.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Ok what would you call it? Life existed before the beginning of the universe or life does not exist at all? IMO, even you cannot claim the latter, so it seems you are stuck with the former.
No it is not a "far cry" at all, it is a "step" in the right direction.
And the alternative is...? Actually it is you who is pushing against science, but without offering a logical alternative proposition.
You think stomping your feet you will speed up the process of trial and error in laboratories?
Are you now agreeing with the proposition that life emerged from non-living matter? Are you making an unsupported assumption? For shame!
Of course the conditions were just right at the time life took an evolutionary step from the precursors. But those conditions definitely did not exist "in the beginning" The trick is to figure out what those conditions were. I know of no other body of knowledge that can eventually provide the answers except science. If you can recommend a better authority, please do tell.
Well what is it...make up your mind. Natural evolution or Divine intervention? You call that "(deleted)"?
Do we need another Scopes Trial or another Kitzmiller-Dover Trial ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0CYZvaJLw&feature=related )?
As far as I can tell, there are just two possibilities. Just two, any other proposition rests on one of the two,
a) Life always existed, a concept which is incompatible with EVERYTHING WE DO KNOW about the history of the universe. I believe we can dismiss that notion right from the start.
b) Life began after the beginning of the universe. Which allows for two possibilities,
b1) Life evolved from non-living matter, a natural and well established Theory of Universal Evolutionary Processes.
b2) Life was created from non-living matter by a motivated sentience, a well established Theory of Divine Creation of the universe and all that is within it.
My vote goes to b1). Do you have a better idea?
Yelling and screaming does not convince me that you are on solid ground or even have anything new to offer.
The proposition is that life emerged from non-living matter (chemistry). Science has set out to prove or falsify that proposition.
Why do you feel the need to ridicule all that time and effort by scientists in laboratories around the world, trying to recreate the conditions which allowed for life to emerge ?
...or...:
Okay, let me get this straight - "it does not invalidate the fact that if we accept the current BB/Inflationary theory of Universal/space/time evolution", which seems to "Violate" #[1] of your "few simple procedures": "[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:", "then the only answer at its most basic structure is that "LIFE AROSE FROM NON LIFE" "
So...does this mean that the "the current BB/Inflationary theory of Universal/space/time evolution" can, and is to be presented and accepted as "fact" and not "theory"?
I am sorry - but as David Letterman might say : "...there's something kind of Hinkey about that..."!
where is it etched in stone the universe "began"?
you DO realize science DOES NOT KNOW, right?
oh my, a step, in 60 years.
i don't need an alternative to ask why science pushes the opposite of what it has ALWAYS observed.
yes, it was an assumption, made to mock YOUR assumption.
miller-urey did exactly that.
they wound up with a racemic blend of amino acids.
i don't remember EVER saying there were only 2 choices.
don't ask, find them yourself.
how so?
there is no evidence the universe "began".
science has never observed life coming from non life.
yes.
science doesn't know how life came to be.
and that's a fact.
who said i was?
the conditions of primordial earth WAS simulated, by miller-urey.
all they got was amino acids, they didn't get RNA.
Not really. What you need to do is clear your mind of baggage first.
But anyway being the helpful lovable bloke I actually am, let me once again explain....
As far as life in the Universe is concerned we have two choices...one scientific, one non scientific.
If we accept the BB/Inflationary model as correct, we must then accept that life arose from non life.
IT IS THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC ANSWER
It's that simple, unless you prefer the non scientific myth...that is life was created by an all powerful being.
So as is obvious, if you clear the baggage, I do not contravene any of the excellent 12 points in the OP.
That "life arose from non life" is a logical progression if one accepts the BB/Inflationary model.
We were all born in the belly of stars:
Carl Sagan:
So, you believe in a divine deity creating it?
????Please explain?
Rubbish....expansion and CMBR just to name two
It may not know how as yet, but it does know that it happened.
We are here...simple as that.
^^above^^ = Strawman?, Obfuscation?, Trolling?...Meh!
Are we to expected to accept that "extraordinary" claim without any "extraordinary" evidence to support it?
"If we accept the model as correct"? - Why should we accept "the BB/Inflationary model as correct"?
paddoboy, you seem to be accepting and presenting the "model as correct", is that any different than accepting and presenting the "theory as fact"?
***see : "few simple procedures #[1] Don't present the theory(Model) as fact(Correct)...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:" ***
Again with the "non scientific myth" and "baggage" Tripe! Attack the argument - Not the Person!! I will address the Non-Trolling part of the above.
paddoboy, "if one accepts the BB/Inflationary model"(Theory)...as fact... then "one" directly "contravene"'s your own "few simple procedures #[1]" !!! :
paddoboy, would you please address the seeming incongruousness between the "few simple procedures #[1]" that you "Preach", and the utilization of a "model as correct" or a "theory as fact " that you seem to "Practice"???
Please???
No, no, no and no and Meh! right back at you.
You?...you mean are you expected to accept that. Most here and mainstream in general, accept the BB because it's supported by much evidence. If you take the BB as the accepted likelyhood of how the Universe evolved, you must accept that life arose from non life. No problems with that here now except for you and leopold.
Have you another model, that better matches observations?
Can you falsify the incumbent model?
I'm accepting the logical, that if the incumbent model is held as legitimate, then life arose from non life.
No one has presented anything to falsify the incumbent model.
Now would you kindly present whatever model you think you have that can falsify the incumbent model?
Or present any model, that presupposes life arising by any other means?
irrelevant.
the explanation is simple, i don't need an alternative to ask why science pushes the opposite of what it has always observed.
this is an outright lie dude.
we sure are.
No, far from being irrelevant. We have many religious folk coming here pushing unscientific versions of what happened.Other than life from non life, it's the only other explanation, albeit an unscientific one.
So, you believe we have a conspiracy afoot?
To what ends?
No it's not. If it wasn't some divine intervention, it's the only conclusion that can be reached dude.
So how did you get here?
I've got plenty of time......I'm in and out periodically all week.
To dmoe.....
Please note, that the OP contained errors by your's truly that AId picked me up on.
Where I use the word theory in reference to non mainstream and alternative models, I should have used "HYPOTHESIS"
For obvious reasons.
it sure is.
science DOES NOT KNOW if matter can become alive.
science HAS NEVER witnessed it.
NO ONE has presented ANY evidence that it has.
my daddy looked at my mommy with "that look".
of that i'm absolutely sure.
there are more than 2 choices paddoboy and you know it.
for you to continue to assert otherwise is breaching the site rules.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
So we should give up now? It's a useless enterprise according to Leopold.
yes, if at first you don't succeed, to hell with it?
Therefore we should give up this line of inquiry?
It is, after all, just a qualified assumption, worthy only of mockery?
Barely worth mentioning?
No, I did, among other more learned fellows. You haven't said anything but deny the value of current scientific inquiry into the "beginning of life"
No evidence whatsoever. we might as well give up?
What fools these mortals be for persisting in a useless quest?.
Why do we even bother? We don't know, so we might as well accept the fact we'll never know?
Yes, they failed to create life in a petri dish, just a couple of building blocks in 60 years, something which might have taken millions of years by random natural selection in the entire universe. What a waste of time and money for such small return?
These responses are not intended to mock you, Leopold. I just want to demonstrate that you are not bringing anything to the table except scorn for those who have dedicated lifetimes in pursuit of unlocking the mysteries of life and the universe. I find that attitude less than noble.
Please tell me what YOU logically believe to be true. You will not receive scorn from me, even if I disagree. I promise it isn't my style.
Last edited:
...
Noted.
***see :
paddoboy, would you please address the seeming incongruousness between the "few simple procedures #[1]" that you "Preach", and the utilization of a "model as correct" or a "theory as fact " that you seem to "Practice"???
- the ^^above highlighted^^ by dmoe -
Noted.
***see :
***
paddoboy, would you please address the seeming incongruousness between the "few simple procedures #[1]" that you "Preach", and the utilization of a "model as correct" or a "theory as fact " that you seem to "Practice"???
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If Paddoboy knows but refuses to share, why don't you enlighten me, if you also know. I'd really like to expand my horizons.
No amount of screaming, jumping up and down, or threatening will change the fact that either life arose from non life, or that other non scientific reason you seem so threatened by in a big fat supreme almighty deity.
I've addressed it.... You don't like the answer.... What you don't like, you have misinterpreted.....
My sentiments exactly. We already have three TOE's by three alternative hypothesis pushers, who mock all of 20th 21st century cosmology, although this doesn't quite measure up, but it's up there.