For the alternative theorists:

paddoboy said:
In fact both you and the computer you are sitting in front of, are nothing more then star stuff.
Click to expand...

It's actually more weird than that. Every point in space is a distance away from another point. The geometry alone creates difference. Difference means a net. A net distance means a net time, or a net force. Force*distance=work. Work/Time=Power. Power*Time=Energy.

We are made of distance and time.
 
Write4U said:
Exactly how many and among what others? Just a small detail I'd like to have cleared up.
Click to expand...
the article doesn't divulge this information.
By the majority, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
yes.
keep in mind it wasn't unanimous.
And the entire Theory of Evolution rested on that single fact?
Click to expand...
did i say that?
the article is posted here on the forums . . . somewhere, by rav i believe.
i suggest you read it before discussing the subject further.
 
leopold said:
that's because it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this thread.
actually it's all about bioengineering, it's going to take us to the stars dude, er, dudess.
Click to expand...

I agree, now that we are able to manipulate at nano scale, an entire new reality presents. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/cancer-nanotech.html

Kinda makes the question of irreducible complexity moot, IMO.

One question: Do you believe we were bio-engineered or evolved in accordance with the laws of nature?
 
Write4U said:
One question: Do you believe we were bio-engineered or evolved in accordance with the laws of nature?
Click to expand...
what do you think i believe?
one plausible scenario is that life is infinite and evolution happens, but not in accordance with what is taught.
the diversity of life could be the result of the limited number of times DNA can divide.
some process at the end of this timeline sets in motion some type of catalytic reaction that changes the phenotype.
in other words evolution isn't environment based but solely biomolecular.
scary notion actually.

i also believe what was printed in "science" was the truth.
 
leopold said:
what do you think i believe?
one plausible scenario is that life is infinite and evolution happens, but not in accordance with what is taught.
the diversity of life could be the result of the limited number of times DNA can divide.
some process at the end of this timeline sets in motion some type of catalytic reaction that changes the phenotype.
in other words evolution isn't environment based but solely biomolecular.
scary notion actually.

i also believe what was printed in "science" was the truth.
Click to expand...

And what evidence is submitted to support that hypothesis? And is evolution an important factor in such a model?
And finally "was life before matter?"
 
leopold said:
what do you think i believe?
one plausible scenario is that life is infinite and evolution happens, but not in accordance with what is taught.
Click to expand...

How so?
So you believe the Universe/space/time "as we know them" was Infinite too?
Not according to observations and other data.

Gerry Nightingale said:
the diversity of life could be the result of the limited number of times DNA can divide.
some process at the end of this timeline sets in motion some type of catalytic reaction that changes the phenotype.
in other words evolution isn't environment based but solely biomolecular.
scary notion actually.
Click to expand...


The point is that whether evolution is environmentally based or biomolecular, the fact is it occured as logically did Abiogenesis.

We have no other logical answer.
Star stuff is but what we are, as is your computer.
 
writing space/time is the confusion. / represents a division. so space/time looks like you are dividing space by time. much better to stick to the convention and write spacetime.
 
Boris2 said:
writing space/time is the confusion. / represents a division. so space/time looks like you are dividing space by time. much better to stick to the convention and write spacetime.
Click to expand...

I see your point. I would have thought though most, particularly on a science forum, would be aware of what was meant.
Thanks for the suggestion.
 
In the Big Bang model, there was a soup of quarks, leptons, and photons. All this came from earlier energy. I don't really understand why you can disagree. Unless you can offer some better idea.

As I read your earlier posts, Leopold, I'm not disconcerted, but puzzled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top