For the alternative theorists:

Ignoring your usual attacking the poster in the usual passive aggressive stance you take.....and onto the science and nitty gritty......




dumbest man on earth said:
No, paddoboy, I CAN NOT "agree that Life arose from non life", because I DO NOT KNOW "that Life arose from non life" is indeed, a fact.
Click to expand...

It's the only alternative, other then the deity aspect.


dumbest man on earth said:
paddoboy, interspersed with all of the //'s and >>>'s of my Post #871 were two (2) possible "alternatives" to your nowhere "near fact".
Click to expand...

Every possible alternative you have offerred still does not invalidate, or get away from the FACT that at its most basic of logical assumptions, LIFE MUST HAVE INDEED AROSE FROM NON LIFE.


dumbest man on earth said:
It seems that that is something that you, paddoboy, can not "forget" - based upon your seeming need to bring it up fairly regularly in your Posts.
Click to expand...

Naturally....One needs to "short circuit" that inevitable non scientific hypothesis, before any religious fanatics raise it, and because it isn't science.
 
As Grumpy so eloquently put it, scientifically speaking, life arising from non life is just a chemical reaction, between certain elements and appropriate conditions.
Quite simple in its explanation, and yet quite profound in its reality, as being the only course open.
At least its the only one I am aware of and the only one raised in this excellent thread.
[Ignoring the non scientific all powerful, omnipotent deity story]
 
dumbest man on earth said:
So...paddoboy, it seems that not only may it be possible that "Life" just may be an inherent geochemocal progression of Nature, but that "Life' may just indeed be a "spontaneously produced and stabilized" natural consequence of the Universe itself!
Click to expand...

That is great dmoe!!!!!

And what is it saying?
It's saying "THAT LIFE AROSE FROM NON LIFE" at it's most basic logical fundamentals.
The geochemocal progression of Nature and the "spontaneously produced and stabilized" natural consequence of the Universe itself!......
A natural consequence of the Universe itself....I love it!
The Universe or space/time itself. And all the energy and mass we have evolved from that same Universe/space/time, and then finally, and inexorably, life itself arose, through some chemical aspect and conditions of the Universe/space/time, as it expanded.
So you do believe life arose from non life?
That's great, only one now left to convince!
 
paddoboy said:
As Grumpy so eloquently put it, scientifically speaking, life arising from non life is just a chemical reaction, between certain elements and appropriate conditions.
Quite simple in its explanation, and yet quite profound in its reality, as being the only course open.
At least its the only one I am aware of and the only one raised in this excellent thread.
[Ignoring the non scientific all powerful, omnipotent deity story]
Click to expand...

"At least its the only one I am aware of and the only one raised in this excellent thread."...
..."the only one I am aware of"..."the only one raised"..."in this excellent thread"...

Has "Intellectual Dishonesty" ever been even a small part of any True Science?

Oh...and by the way...

SFA/MS:UPTABS?
 
paddoboy said:
That is great dmoe!!!!!

And what is it saying?
It's saying "THAT LIFE AROSE FROM NON LIFE" at it's most basic logical fundamentals.
The geochemocal progression of Nature and the "spontaneously produced and stabilized" natural consequence of the Universe itself!......
A natural consequence of the Universe itself....I love it!
The Universe or space/time itself. And all the energy and mass we have evolved from that same Universe/space/time, and then finally, and inexorably, life itself arose, through some chemical aspect and conditions of the Universe/space/time, as it expanded.
Click to expand...

...I have no response to the ^^above quoted^^.

paddoboy said:
So you do believe life arose from non life?
Click to expand...

paddoboy, if you were doing more than Trolling, and actually Fully Read my Posts - then you would have already Read my answer to your inane question : "So you do believe life arose from non life?" - but, since you seem to be only...Trolling.

At any rate, if you were only Trolling, you would possibly end your Post by stating an "assumption" or making a "statement" indicating your complete disrespect or disdain for another Poster's position or views.
paddoboy said:
That's great, only one now left to convince!
Click to expand...
 
paddoboy said:
Every possible alternative you have offerred still does not invalidate, or get away from the FACT that at its most basic of logical assumptions, LIFE MUST HAVE INDEED AROSE FROM NON LIFE.
.
Click to expand...


Once again dmoe, you have not offered any alternative, that does not when taken back to basic fundamentals, contradict that "LIFE AROSE FROM NON LIFE"
That's OK, though, because there isn't any. ;)
 
Grumpy said:
paddoboy

First we must define what the simplest form of life must be able to do to be defined as life. Any self replicating molecule, no matter how small or environment dependent would be my definition.
Click to expand...
unfortunately this isn't the definition of life.
fraggle gave a list in post 565 on page 29
the "simplest" form of life that science knows is the living cell.
There is nothing outside of normal physical laws separating life from non-life.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...
this is an assumption.
science has yet to recreate life from the elements.
 
paddoboy said:
Once again dmoe, you have not offered any alternative, that does not when taken back to basic fundamentals, contradict that "LIFE AROSE FROM NON LIFE"
That's OK, though, because there isn't any. ;)
Click to expand...

So...paddoboy, what about "Life as we don't know it", is that "also a possibility", "albeit an unknown one."?

If "Life as we don't know it" is "also a possibility" - is there also any possibility that Science does not fully understand the underlying Reality of "Life" and "Non-Life"?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
So...paddoboy, what about "Life as we don't know it", is that "also a possibility", "albeit an unknown one."?
Click to expand...


I personally believe it is a valid hypothesis....I'm not putting it as a theory or fact.


dumbest man on earth said:
If "Life as we don't know it" is "also a possibility" - is there also any possibility that Science does not fully understand the underlying Reality of "Life" and "Non-Life"?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's possible, but I don't believe it is the situation in science today.
And once again, whatever doubts exist in the theory of Evolution, does not carry through to the near fact that life arose from non life, although the exact methodology and exact chemical reactions that began it, maybe uncertain.

Any more questions dmoe?
 
Yazata said:
Naturalism comes in two broad categories, metaphysical and methodological
Click to expand...

paddoboy said:
So, I think in reality, we can kill that one stone dead.
Click to expand...

Kill what stone dead?

The Carl Sagan quote suggests that you might be objecting to my characterizing metaphysical naturalism as an article of metaphysical faith. Operating on that assumption, I'll provide a little more justification for saying it.

Metaphysical naturalism basically claims that everything that exists belongs to the world of nature and in principle is subject to being understood by natural science.

That isn't just an assertion about what's already known by human beings. It's also an assertion about the necessary nature of everything that's unknown as well. And that seems to be way out in front of the evidence, simply by definition.

Even if we restrict ourselves to science-fictionish speculation, we can imagine other dimensions, other universes and causally-discontinuous space-time continua, alternate realities of the many-worlds QM sort, and things like that.

But it's a more fundamental problem than that. Cockroaches can't understand Einstein's theory of relativity. They simply don't have the cognitive ability, the neural firepower. So we can say, from our superior human vantage-point, that there are aspects to reality whose existence cockroaches will never even suspect, and that whatever means of knowing that cockroaches might use can never grasp.

So... what justifies our confidence that human beings, and our powers of human cognition, are uniquely able to comprehend the ultimate boundaries of what can and can't possibly be? Why are we so certain that we occupy the pinnacle of all possible intelligent life? Why can't there be apects of reality that are as far beyond our powers (including our natural science) as Einstein's theories are beyond those of cockroaches?

I'm not talking about God here, so atheist knees needn't jerk. Maybe there are aspects of reality whose very existence can only be suspected, and whose nature can only be discovered, by intellectually superior space-aliens or by super-advanced artifical intelligences of the remote future.
 
Yazata said:
Kill what stone dead?
Click to expand...


The argument [logical in the eyes of religious people] that it is natural to argue that a supreme being needed to have created all the wonders and life we see. But naturally then, [as Sagan has put it] what created that deity...and what gave him his knowledge and power....and if the answer back is he/she was always there, then why not say that the laws of the Universe and nature were always there and save a step?
 
Yazata said:
I'm not talking about God here, so atheist knees needn't jerk. Maybe there are aspects of reality whose very existence can only be suspected, and whose nature can only be discovered, by intellectually superior space-aliens or by super-advanced artifical intelligences of the remote future.
Click to expand...

That's quite interesting.
But irrespective of any Alien being intellectually superior, we ourselves can only act according to the logic of our intellect.
And again, I'm struggling to see how any other conclusion [scientific] can be reached, other then at its most basic, life from non life.
 
Just a quick note Yazata...I'm not Atheist. I'm a genuine dyed in the wool Agnostic.
And as an Agnostic, I don't unnecessarilly go into battle with religious folk. In fact they are treated by me, just as anyone else is.
I will go into battle with them though, when they see the need to deride great scientists like Darwin, or science itself.
:shrug:
 
leopold

unfortunately this isn't the definition of life.
fraggle gave a list in post 565 on page 29
the "simplest" form of life that science knows is the living cell.
Click to expand...

It is the definition of the simplest conceivable form of life. Cells are far from the simplest form. Cells are a result of almost 3 billion years of evolution from the first, simplest life.

this is an assumption.
science has yet to recreate life from the elements.
Click to expand...

We have created self replicating molecules and seen them successfully replicate mutations(the requirements of evolution). While it is true that we don't know the exact chemistry of the first life, we have shown the principle of replication, the primary thing life must do from non-living chemistry is possible. Cells are orders of magnitude more complicated than the beginnings.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Grumpy said:
leopold



It is the definition of the simplest conceivable form of life.
Click to expand...
it is a definition of a replicating molecule, it can do NONE of the things outlined in post 565.
Cells are far from the simplest form.
Click to expand...
i believe science does not know of any other "form of life" other than the living cell.
Cells are a result of almost 3 billion years of evolution from the first, simplest life.
Click to expand...
another assumption.
i believe no one has given any real data regarding the matter, you know, like controlled experiments.
We have created self replicating molecules and seen them successfully replicate mutations(the requirements of evolution).
Click to expand...
where are the results of these experiments?
i have a paper on my HDD * that states small populations of RNA quickly become nonviable due to mutations.
While it is true that we don't know the exact chemistry of the first life, we have shown the principle of replication, the primary thing life must do from non-living chemistry is possible. Cells are orders of magnitude more complicated than the beginnings.

Grumpy:cool:
Click to expand...
the thing about all of this is:
the average layman can construct molecules in their minds and picture these things hooking together in various ways.
they say yeah, i can see that.
the problem is that it's not that straight forward.
replication DOES seem like a good starting point though.
it sounds like we have a good basis for a computer model.
in fact, i believe a computer model would suffice for the actual hard evidence.
a model could also lead us to some of the "causes" of evolution.

* edit:
www.genetics.org/content/175/1/267.full.pdf
 
paddoboy said:
The argument [logical in the eyes of religious people] that it is natural to argue that a supreme being needed to have created all the wonders and life we see. But naturally then, [as Sagan has put it] what created that deity...and what gave him his knowledge and power....and if the answer back is he/she was always there, then why not say that the laws of the Universe and nature were always there and save a step?
Click to expand...

This "Sagan" fellow you mention, paddoboy, seems to have "put it" quite well.
He may well have considered the issue - openly, honestly, earnestly and intelligently - for quite some time.

Maybe, we could glean a little from his wisdom (Standing on the Shoulders of Giants and such!), and employ a similar vein of thought.

Perhaps, and I repeat, Perhaps :
- The argument [logical in the eyes of some people] that it is natural to argue that a Big Bang was needed to have created what we perceive as the Universe and all the wonders and life we see. But naturally then, [as this "Sagan" fellow you mention, may have "put it"] what created the conditions that allowed, or led to that Big Bang...and what gave that Big Bang Universe it's Fundamental Properties or Nature....and if the answer back is the Universe and nature were always there, then why not say that the laws of the Universe and nature were always there and save a step? - Perhaps.

paddoboy, please read carefully, and try your darnedest to fully understand, what I Posted?

Please?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
This "Sagan" fellow you mention, paddoboy, seems to have "put it" quite well.
He may well have considered the issue - openly, honestly, earnestly and intelligently - for quite some time.

Maybe, we could glean a little from his wisdom (Standing on the Shoulders of Giants and such!), and employ a similar vein of thought.
Click to expand...



With all due respect, "this Sagan" fellow as you put it, did put it very well, and that's why I referenced it.
Probably the greatest educator of our time.
And as I do, he approached the situation, openly, honestly and intelligently, without any malice or baggage.
His thoughts reflect much the same as mine in other regions also, with regards to ETI, space/time and such.
They reflect that because we do both at least try and approach the situation, openly, honestly, intelligently, and without malice and baggage.
I say that with all relevant humility, as obviously unlike me [and you] he is actually one of those giants you speak of.

His thoughts on Life are also the same as mine coincidentally , that is life from non life, at its most basic level.

Now some more to perhaps help you in your life on this forum.
I do read carefully, but being human, I sometimes miss things, as so obviously you do to.
Unlike you though, I do pay plenty of attention to the greater picture, rather then nit picking at trees so to speak and blinkering ones self to the forest present.

Please read carefully dmoe, and please try and not to misinterpret my good attentions in trying to help you in the current struggle.

All the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top