Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Modularity, A distinguishing property of life
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 91 of 291 (513482)
06-29-2009 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
06-28-2009 2:42 PM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Never, ever, ever has it been demonstrated that non-livings become living things.
This is false. Look out of your window, do you see a tree? That tree, right now (assuming it's daytime where you are) is converting non-living matter into matter. It's taking inorganic compounds, turning them into organic compounds and building living things from it.
The fact is that the more closely you investigate, the blurrier the line between living and non-living becomes. Living things are just chemistry; very complicated chemistry, granted, but chemistry none-the-less.
Even now and under pristine and ideal laboratory conditions! So how is it up to me to demonstrate why that isn't true as opposed to you proving to me why it is!?!?
See, this is a silly argument. Not being able to reproduce things in a lab says nothing about their occurrence in nature. We can't make a star in the lab, but there they are shining in the sky; we can't make a volcano in the lab, yet they happen all the time. Our ability to recreate things in the lab tells us of our limits not the limits of nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2009 2:42 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2009 9:10 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 291 (513490)
06-29-2009 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by slevesque
06-29-2009 1:27 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
slevesque writes:
You are telling me I could not prove that statement ?
How exactly do you plan to provide complete information about the apples you possess? You can show strong indications that you do not have 5 apples, but in the end you are still going to be limited in the evidence you can provide. It will always be something like "There is no apple detected within the defined area of "ownership", and experience suggests that there should not be an additional apple." Note that this is different from having information that there *is* an apple because that information need not be complete.
slevesque writes:
By doing this, you are proving a negative, how then can it be true ?
Because I am doing it in my BRAIN, and it is an OUGHT not an IS. For example, the number "i". You cannot do that in nature but it works just fine on paper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by slevesque, posted 06-29-2009 1:27 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by slevesque, posted 06-29-2009 7:21 AM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 94 by slevesque, posted 06-29-2009 7:25 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 93 of 291 (513491)
06-29-2009 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Phage0070
06-29-2009 7:12 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
So I could never prove that my car is not blue either ?
Or that God did not create the world in six days ?
Anyone else agree with that guy ? because personnally i think it is complete nonesense and against the concept of falsifiability. Maybe an outside opinion would be nice.
PS ''i'' is not a number, it is a letter.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
Edited by slevesque, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Phage0070, posted 06-29-2009 7:12 AM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-29-2009 8:30 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2009 5:39 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 94 of 291 (513492)
06-29-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Phage0070
06-29-2009 7:12 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Because I am doing it in my BRAIN, and it is an OUGHT not an IS. For example, the number "i". You cannot do that in nature but it works just fine on paper.
Ok, so now OUGHT negatives can be proven, but not IS negatives ? (whatever that means, sounds like 'No true scotsman' if you ask me)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Phage0070, posted 06-29-2009 7:12 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 95 of 291 (513498)
06-29-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by slevesque
06-29-2009 7:21 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
So I could never prove that my car is not blue either ?
Or that God did not create the world in six days ?
Anyone else agree with that guy ? because personnally i think it is complete nonesense and against the concept of falsifiability. Maybe an outside opinion would be nice.
Here I am, ready to save your grammar! OK, kind of.
In falsifiability, you cannot directly prove a negative (the world is not flat), but you can prove a positive which disproves a negative (the world is round therefore it is not flat).
Hope that clears that up.
PS ''i'' is not a number, it is a letter.
I think that was the point...

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by slevesque, posted 06-29-2009 7:21 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 96 of 291 (513499)
06-29-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
06-28-2009 11:31 PM


Re: Instantaneous -- NOT ... Now define life.
Hyroglyphx writes:
Percy writes:
couldn't you find a reference more recent than the 1902 Encyclopaedia Britannica?
If you say life came from non-life, is it an unreasonable request to define what life is?!?!...I thought it was excellent, regardless of the age.
Huxley's article is an excellent example of Victorian science writing, but his definition of life is more than a century old. As others have mentioned, we have learned much since the 1880's when Huxley likely wrote that article (for example, about the existence of viruses and prions). Any modern definition of life will be more circumspect and nuanced, as well as much more informed.
I would agree that what led up to the event was slow and gradual. But the point in time where something was non-living to living couldn't have been slow, lest you think that the very first organism was in a state of limbo, neither living nor non-living.
Let's follow your reasoning and see where it leads. So the development of the first life was slow and gradual, but you believe it led up to an "event" which was the beginning of the first life. But unless you believe that unlike the rest of the process that the "event" was something large and sudden, this "event" was just one tiny element amidst all the rest of the tiny elements of the slow and gradual process. How are you going to identify that "event"?
The obvious answer is that you cannot. No definition of life could ever cut so fine as to distinguish between two complex chemical systems differing by perhaps only a single molecule, and no consensus of scientific opinion would ever develop around any definition so incredibly detailed, not to mention that our knowledge of the details of life's origin is so sparse that we could not even attempt so detailed a definition anyway.
One can see scientific arenas in which the definition of life might be important. For example, NASA needs to be able to report whether it has discovered life on Mars (more for public relations than for scientific reasons), and so it needs a very specific definition. But the origin of life needs no such precise definition. Origins of life researchers are for the most part not very interested in finding where to draw the line between non-life and life. What they're seeking is a realistic natural process by which life might have gradually developed. At what specific point during the process non-life became life is a side issue of not much significance.
It doesn't. I don't even know how we arrived at this discussion. If you would like it to be more relevant, perhaps we can take this debate to RAZD's thread.
I don't know which RAZD thread you mean, but there must be at least a hundred threads where this discussion would be more on-topic than it is here. If you decide to switch to a more pertinent thread just post a note here letting us know which one.
Is Special and General Relativity less relevant now because it was first conceived in the 30's?
You're off by 3 and 2 decades respectively.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2009 11:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2009 9:44 AM Percy has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 291 (513503)
06-29-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dr Jack
06-29-2009 5:09 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
This is false. Look out of your window, do you see a tree? That tree, right now (assuming it's daytime where you are) is converting non-living matter into matter. It's taking inorganic compounds, turning them into organic compounds and building living things from it.
Trees have at their disposal a wide array of carbon-based compounds in the nutrient-rich soil, which provide energy. Many of the nutrients used by plants are held in until the organisms break down the materials and release them for the plants’ use. So if anything, it is the other way around.
Not being able to reproduce things in a lab says nothing about their occurrence in nature. We can't make a star in the lab, but there they are shining in the sky; we can't make a volcano in the lab, yet they happen all the time. Our ability to recreate things in the lab tells us of our limits not the limits of nature.
No, what's silly is using a star or a volcano, which are enormous, particularly the star, to something more reasonable like microrganisms. This was tried before with both the Oparin-Haldane and Milley-Urey experiments. They never did get beyond a few non-living, simple chemical compounds, specifically amino acids. It takes a minimum of 20 amino acids that must be present in living organisms.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dr Jack, posted 06-29-2009 5:09 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Jack, posted 06-29-2009 10:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 291 (513505)
06-29-2009 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
06-29-2009 8:53 AM


Define life
Origins of life researchers are for the most part not very interested in finding where to draw the line between non-life and life. What they're seeking is a realistic natural process by which life might have gradually developed. At what specific point during the process non-life became life is a side issue of not much significance.
This makes no sense, honestly. If someone claims that life comes from non-life, at some point you have to be able to determine where the line is, scientifically. Otherwise, how would you able to even prove it true?
  • Living matter is composed of cells.
  • Living material has a metabolism for using/storing energy.
  • Living matter develops through a growth cycle.
  • Living things reproduce.
  • Living organisms require oxygen, though some have adapted to anoxic environments.
  • Living things respond and adapt to their environment.
  • Living matter is carbon-based
    The objections I'm hearing are simply semantical arguments, not anything substantive. I understand that you believe the line is so blurry, but surely you understand that you cannot successfully claim that life comes from non-life without first distinguishing between the two.
    Would you at least agree with that, even if you think that I am ultimately incorrect?

    "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by Percy, posted 06-29-2009 8:53 AM Percy has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by Percy, posted 06-29-2009 1:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

      
    Dr Jack
    Member
    Posts: 3514
    From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
    Joined: 07-14-2003
    Member Rating: 8.7


    Message 99 of 291 (513507)
    06-29-2009 10:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
    06-29-2009 9:10 AM


    Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
    Trees have at their disposal a wide array of carbon-based compounds in the nutrient-rich soil, which provide energy. Many of the nutrients used by plants are held in until the organisms break down the materials and release them for the plants’ use. So if anything, it is the other way around.
    This is simply wrong. Plants absorb little or no carbon from the soil (they do absorb water , nitrogen compounds and phosphate primarily, along with some other trace elements); their source of energy is sunlight, which they employ to combine inorganic carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) and water into sugars which are then further metabolised into the full variety of organic compounds including amino acids and fatty acids. Trees are, quite literally, made of rain, sunlight and air.
    No, what's silly is using a star or a volcano, which are enormous, particularly the star, to something more reasonable like microrganisms.
    Way to miss the point: our inability to reproduce something in a lab is meaningless as to the possibility of something. Especially where elements of scale are involved.
    This was tried before with both the Oparin-Haldane and Milley-Urey experiments. They never did get beyond a few non-living, simple chemical compounds, specifically amino acids.
    Neither of these experiments tried to produce life. What they did was remarkable: they demonstrated that organic compounds can be formed by simple inorganic chemistry. A fact since confirmed in a great many ways both in the laboratory and through observation of the universe.
    It takes a minimum of 20 amino acids that must be present in living organisms.
    No, most currently extant life uses precisely 20 amino acids in protein encoding. This is very much not the same things as 'must be present in living organisms'. Do you understand why?
    Edited by Mr Jack, : qs tags, not quote tags

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2009 9:10 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2009 12:07 PM Dr Jack has replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 100 of 291 (513515)
    06-29-2009 12:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 99 by Dr Jack
    06-29-2009 10:20 AM


    Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
    No, most currently extant life uses precisely 20 amino acids in protein encoding. This is very much not the same things as 'must be present in living organisms'. Do you understand why?
    Yes, they must be present as each is integral to the function of the overall product. Peptide bonds, amino's, and protein polymers of 20 amino acids are necessary to have an operable cell. You don't have those and you don't have life.
    Seriously though, this is getting absurd.
    No one has been able to prove whatsoever that life ever came from non-life, either then or now, and no one besides me has even attempted to define what life or non-life is. How exactly is this any different than creationist pseudo-scientific babble?
    If you can't differentiate between living and non-living, then you aren't qualified to insist that life can come from non-life. As a basic and minimal criteria you must be able to define what life is and you must be able demonstrate how inorganic matter can give rise to living matter. Otherwise it is, as I've been saying all along, a theory and nothing more. Until you show somebody the goods, it never happened.

    "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 99 by Dr Jack, posted 06-29-2009 10:20 AM Dr Jack has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 101 by onifre, posted 06-29-2009 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
     Message 109 by Dr Jack, posted 06-30-2009 4:13 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    onifre
    Member (Idle past 2951 days)
    Posts: 4854
    From: Dark Side of the Moon
    Joined: 02-20-2008


    Message 101 of 291 (513518)
    06-29-2009 1:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 100 by Hyroglyphx
    06-29-2009 12:07 PM


    What is your point...?
    No one has been able to prove whatsoever that life ever came from non-life, either then or now, and no one besides me has even attempted to define what life or non-life is.
    Your attempts are unevidenced assertions that lack scientific credibility.
    If you can't differentiate between living and non-living, then you aren't qualified to insist that life can come from non-life.
    We can currently define what life is and what non-life is, 4 billion years ago, when it was in it's slow, gradual process, it's impossible to know what that fine line was. However, feel free to do the research and see what you come up with...
    As a basic and minimal criteria you must be able to define what life is and you must be able demonstrate how inorganic matter can give rise to living matter.
    The demonstration you seek is what is currently being studied in the field of abiogenesis. If you have evidence that trumps what they are doing, show it...
    Otherwise it is, as I've been saying all along, a theory and nothing more.
    Actually, all current works in the field of abiogenesis are still hypothesis.
    Until you show somebody the goods, it never happened.
    I can't show you how the planet was made from matter either, but look down, you're standing on it.
    Likewise, we can't show you how life arrose through natural process, but look at the fossil record. You'll find no life at a certain point, then you find life...any suggestions how that happened?
    No matter how you slice it, whether god or natural, life came from none living elements, right? God, if that's the best suggestion you have, still had to use non-living matter, right?
    So whats your real issue?
    - Oni

    Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2009 12:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2009 1:49 PM onifre has replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22393
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 102 of 291 (513524)
    06-29-2009 1:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 98 by Hyroglyphx
    06-29-2009 9:44 AM


    Re: Define life
    Hyroglyphx writes:
    I understand that you believe the line is so blurry, but surely you understand that you cannot successfully claim that life comes from non-life without first distinguishing between the two.
    No one is failing to distinguish between life and non-life. You've offered a couple definitions of life, and we could quibble about the details, but clearly we all accept that life possesses certain qualities that distinguish it from non-life.
    So no one is suggesting that it isn't possible to distinguish life from non-life. Clear?
    What we're explaining to you is that in a gradual process of change in minute steps along the path from non-life to life, that the precise dividing line cannot be identified.
    Here's an example of the ambiguity. Let's say that we agree that living matter is composed of cells that are delineated by cell membranes. We follow the development across time of a protocell that has no cell membrane. At a particular point of development we find that it has acquired a flimsy film around it that is fairly porous to material entering and leaving. After much reflection we decide that this is insufficient to be considered a cell membrane, and that therefore this proto-cell is not living.
    At a later point in development we find that 10% of the film around the protocell has become an actual cell membrane. Is that sufficient for the protocell to be considered living? We decide not.
    Later we find that 20% of the film is actual cell membrane, but we again decide that the protocell isn't living yet.
    Later we find it has grown to 50% genuine cell membrane, and now 20% of scientists think it is living.
    Later it grows to 75% genuine cell membrane, and 50% of scientists agree it is living.
    And so on.
    So at what point is the protocell considered alive?
    You can't answer that question. And this is just one simple made-up scenario. The realities are far more complex with far more variables and huge numbers of permutations of ways for scientists to disagree.
    This is why debating about the precise point where non-life became life is a pointless exercise. Origins of life researchers are far more interested in identifying possible pathways.
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2009 9:44 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-30-2009 9:38 AM Percy has replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 103 of 291 (513525)
    06-29-2009 1:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 101 by onifre
    06-29-2009 1:15 PM


    Re: What is your point...?
    Your attempts are unevidenced assertions that lack scientific credibility.
    How can I show you evidence of something that never happened other have you provide evidence that it did??? Ponder that notion deeply.
    We can currently define what life is and what non-life is, 4 billion years ago, when it was in it's slow, gradual process, it's impossible to know what that fine line was.
    Then how do you know it happened at all? You really can't see why that is problematic to your position? It seems to me that your deduction is that there are living things here now and you therefore conclude that they must have come from inorganic matter. Just because we have no other explanations mean that we automatically default.
    The demonstration you seek is what is currently being studied in the field of abiogenesis. If you have evidence that trumps what they are doing, show it...
    Agreed, that scientists are working on it. All I said from the beginning was that it was not proven. Why are you guys fighting me tooth and nail on this? It is a FACT that it has never left the theoretical stage.
    I can't show you how the planet was made from matter either, but look down, you're standing on it.
    Oni... Come on, now... You're killin' me over here... Do you really not understand the difference between finding out why something is versus noticing something? Obviously no one contends with the fact that organic matter is here now. Why and how are the scientific questions. If I asked you how the earth was formed, I wouldn't expect you to tell me to look down because that doesn't answer the question.
    any suggestions how that happened?
    No, I wish I did know. Like I said, there are some compelling theories with the study that have caught my eye. I am only taking exceptions that people speak about non-proven theory as if it is signed, sealed, and delivered. That's not right.
    No matter how you slice it, whether god or natural, life came from none living elements, right? God, if that's the best suggestion you have, still had to use non-living matter, right?
    So whats your real issue?
    My real issue??? I don't like dogmatic religious zealots who make a mockery of science and refuse to listen to reason and I don't like atheist hypocrites who are too enthralled by atheism itself that it's become a pseudo-religion complete with its own bible-thumping creation story. What's the difference between the two, honestly?
    Since when was We aren't entirely sure, but we are studying it an insufficient answer? It's almost like scientists feel compelled to come up with any theory so long as they have an answer.
    But damn, if you don't know, you don't know! That's okay! But don't just make shit up. That's just unethical.
    That's how I really feel.

    "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by onifre, posted 06-29-2009 1:15 PM onifre has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-29-2009 2:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 106 by Percy, posted 06-29-2009 4:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 107 by onifre, posted 06-29-2009 6:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 06-30-2009 1:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Teapots&unicorns
    Member (Idle past 4888 days)
    Posts: 178
    Joined: 06-23-2009


    Message 104 of 291 (513526)
    06-29-2009 2:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
    06-29-2009 1:49 PM


    Re: What is your point...?
    Your attempts are unevidenced assertions that lack scientific credibility.
    How can I show you evidence of something that never happened other have you provide evidence that it did??? Ponder that notion deeply.
    We have evidence, just not absolute proof. As predicted, we have been able to produce the first step. You are right, in that it does not prove anything; however, it does show that if we were right the first time, we may be right again.
    The demonstration you seek is what is currently being studied in the field of abiogenesis. If you have evidence that trumps what they are doing, show it...
    Agreed, that scientists are working on it. All I said from the beginning was that it was not proven. Why are you guys fighting me tooth and nail on this? It is a FACT that it has never left the theoretical stage.
    See above.
    any suggestions how that happened?
    No, I wish I did know. Like I said, there are some compelling theories with the study that have caught my eye. I am only taking exceptions that people speak about non-proven theory as if it is signed, sealed, and delivered. That's not right.
    You are right. Abiogenesis is not "signed, sealed, and delivered." However, it is the best option we've got right now. What are these other theories you're talking about? I'd like to hear them.
    No matter how you slice it, whether god or natural, life came from none living elements, right? God, if that's the best suggestion you have, still had to use non-living matter, right?
    So whats your real issue?
    My real issue??? I don't like dogmatic religious zealots who make a mockery of science and refuse to listen to reason and I don't like atheist hypocrites who are too enthralled by atheism itself that it's become a pseudo-religion complete with its own bible-thumping creation story. What's the difference between the two, honestly?
    Since when was We aren't entirely sure, but we are studying it an insufficient answer? It's almost like scientists feel compelled to come up with any theory so long as they have an answer.
    But damn, if you don't know, you don't know! That's okay! But don't just make shit up. That's just unethical.
    That's how I really feel.
    Good points.
    However, I feel that you may be overstressing the "athiest zealots," as you percieve them. If you are referring to people who try to convince others that God doesn't exist, then I'm fine with them as long as they don't purposely offend anyone and as long as they use rational arguments- not emotional/social ones.
    Also, you may have taken abiogenesis too far- it is, as you have pointed out, only theory/hypothesis- but it in no way exists to make a mockery of religion. Facts do not conform themselves to peoples' wants. If abiogenesis or something else unrelated to religion is discovered to be true, or vice -versa, that doesn't mean that they are purposely there to prove someone wrong.
    My real issue??? I don't like dogmatic religious zealots who make a mockery of science and refuse to listen to reason and I don't like atheist hypocrites who are too enthralled by atheism itself that it's become a pseudo-religion complete with its own bible-thumping creation story. What's the difference between the two, honestly?
    I would really like to ask here that, if you believe athiesm to be a (psuedo) religion, then what constitutes a religion in your mind? Just out of curiosity.

    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
    - Stephen Roberts
    I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
    - Dan Foutes
    "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
    - Douglas Adams

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2009 1:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Perdition
    Member (Idle past 3238 days)
    Posts: 1593
    From: Wisconsin
    Joined: 05-15-2003


    Message 105 of 291 (513533)
    06-29-2009 3:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
    06-28-2009 8:34 AM


    Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
    No life was on the Earth a really time ago, but now there is life. So therefore life just popped into existence all by itself, regardless of whether or not it's been scientifically demonstrated. There is nothing else to surmise because there couldn't possibly be any other explanation I'm willing to entertain. It goes against my deepest philosophical views. The end.
    This is not what he said, paraphrased or not. Abiogenesis means life from non-life. If at one point there was no life, and at some subsequent point there is, by definition, the life had to have come from "nonlife", thus abiogenesis. Now, the precise method of abiogenesis is being debated and investigated, but unless you can come up with an argument whereby there was no life, but life somehow then caused life...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2009 8:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024