It would seem to me that the important feature of life is replication, not the length of an individual's lifetime. If all life did was live and then die there would be no life on Earth. It is the ability to reproduce which has resulted in the biodiversity we see today.
Inert in this context means not alive . . .
Then use abiotic instead. Inert means that it does not react. Obviously, this matter is reacting, therefore it is not inert.
I said I take a good note that the concept that life may come from non-living matter by an unspecified gradual chemical process is present in people's minds. And I take a good note that there is another concept that life may come about from a supremely intelligent, powerful object called God equally poorly specified. That is all I can do with these concepts and no more. Take a good note of them, assume the proposals at face-value without reservation and see what may be the logical implications and consequences of each, what the inherent contradictions are and what their strong points seem to be and so on. Not take either of them for a fact of nature. Life coming from another life is an entirely different kettle of fish as this is a given fact of nature so is the only scenario that may be taken for granted thus far. Sorry.
I said I take a good note that the concept that life may come from non-living matter by an unspecified gradual chemical process is present in people's minds. And I take a good note that there is another concept that life may come about from a supremely intelligent, powerful object called God equally poorly specified.
The interesting part is that people are only doing research on one of those proposals. Why do you think that is?
What else the living are replicating for if not to escape death, silly? Only the bluntly dumb need this to be chewed out for them. That descriptor fully implies the frantic tendency for replication. Love is compensation for death as Schopenhauer and Freud pointed out. That is common to all the living. It captures what exactly the machines aim to do and the intensity of that goal which distinguishes them from other configurations of matter.
What assumptions most people make prior to doing the research is irrelevant. They tend to assume stuff and interpret the results any way they please. I repeat: if life can arise from inanimate matter, then the process is as obligatory to matter as farting to a monkey. If not then no collective assumptions are going to make mother nature comply. Nothing to do with what a crowd of monkeys does or does not reckon.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
Beginning now I am recusing myself from participation as Percy. Tomorrow, Thursday, October 25, 2012, I will begin participating in my moderator role as Admin. I will be enforcing the Forum Guidelines rule about staying on topic.
Look at your reasoning, Tacky. 1. Making love to be fruitful has got nothing to do with death 2.Death avoiding machines just love to pass genes on. 3. If not for that a single generation of death avoiding machines would have been long dead and there would be no life now. Do you get how lame is your reasoning, Tacky? Besides, what is a collection of genes? Memory of how to build a functioning death-avoiding machine, isn't it? And what is death? What puts an end to that functioning, isn't it?
The Ribonuclease protein is the simplest protein that we know of, and can be considered the most basic building block of a cell. It is made from 124 amino acids, the first one in the strand being Lysine. There are 17 different amino acids in this protein, so to simplify it, lets say that there is a 1/17 chance of Lysine coming first. The second one in line, is Glutamic acid. The odds of it coming second are 1/289. Then comes Threonine. Chances of it coming 3rd are 1/4913. If we continue down the list, the end result is 1 followed by 552 zeroes. To put that in perspective, It's the same as a poker player drawing 19 royal flushes in a row, with out trading in any cards. If this is a million: 1,000,000. And this is a billion: 1,000,000,000. And this is a trillion: 1,000,000,000,000, We still have 546, 543, and 540 zeroes to go, respectively. To conclude, I think the chances of a living cell forming from chemicals that just happened to bond, is ridiculously unlikely.
Wow. This guy was bang on. No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL
I thought it appropriate to reproduce the original post, as I back it up 100%. The evidence for an intelligent origin of proteins is the same as the evidence for the intelligent origin of the nucleotide sequence on the original DNA/RNA. I like when numbers come into this discussion. Tends to make the methodological naturalists start dancing, dog and pony shows, and all sorts of entertaining antics to skirt the quantitative issue and hope nobody notices...
Speaking of which, it's probably just about time for RAZD to make an appearance! (lol just joking)
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
Your ignorance is astounding. So what you are saying is that if I had 10 dice it would be take an astronomical amount of times to get me to roll them so I show all sixes?
I'll tell you what. Send me a plane ticket, supply the dice and I will show you how I can roll them so they all show six in less than an hour. No cheating either.
This argument presented by BoredomSetsIn is just plain stupid. If you had bothered to have read the whole thread you would have seen that his argument was systematical destroyed. Do you really think you have the new idea that destroys the underpinnings of evolution? You do think highly of yourself don't you.
Obviously because you do not understand numbers. You might want to learn about statistics and probability before you start spouting nonsense.
No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL
Gee a creationist making misrepresentations, whudda thunk. He was not gotten rid of. He was a driveby creo/fundy. He made two posts and ran away. I am sure he told his pastor how he really showed those evo/atheists a thing or two. He didn't even have the decency to argue his won thread, but I am sure he got credit for a class at his fundie school.
Edited by Theodoric, : A little rant
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.