Page 3 of 19 [ 292 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 19  Next

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

07 May 2015, 11:49 pm

Even in the case of death by asphyxiation all the chemical elements that were present in the live organism remain in the dead one, practically all of which retain their structural integrity for a short while. All that is missing is that metaphysical stuff that makes them all work.

And, even though all the very complex and specialised chemical infrastructure is present, it does not spontaneously re-animate itself into another live organism.

So, if life cannot spontaneously arise from the right mixture of the right very complex and specialised organic molecules, I will maintain that life cannot possibly spontaneously arise from a loose mixture of CO2, H2O, N2, etc. etc.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 May 2015, 1:26 am

Oh My, please tell me you are trolling.You must be


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,813
Location: London

08 May 2015, 3:59 am

Oldavid wrote:
Even in the case of death by asphyxiation all the chemical elements that were present in the live organism remain in the dead one, practically all of which retain their structural integrity for a short while. All that is missing is that metaphysical stuff that makes them all work.

And, even though all the very complex and specialised chemical infrastructure is present, it does not spontaneously re-animate itself into another live organism.

So, if life cannot spontaneously arise from the right mixture of the right very complex and specialised organic molecules, I will maintain that life cannot possibly spontaneously arise from a loose mixture of CO2, H2O, N2, etc. etc.

Again, depends how you define life - laymen think that having a heart restarted means you've been "brought back to life". In that instance, clearly life can restart...

Life began as simple, prokaryotic, unicellular life. These cases of eukaryotes not coming back to life spontaneously are something else altogether - something complex has stopped life working, and it isn't about to just fix itself again. For example, if you die of asphyxiation, then you'd need to start breathing again in order to come back to life. You can't start breathing without brain activity, and you aren't going to get that without oxygen...



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

08 May 2015, 7:42 am

Oldavid wrote:
So, if life cannot spontaneously arise from the right mixture of the right very complex and specialised organic molecules, I will maintain that life cannot possibly spontaneously arise from a loose mixture of CO2, H2O, N2, etc. etc.


loose mixture?.....no, not loose

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/living-crystal/


Quote:
Palacci and fellow NYU physicist Paul Chaikin led a group of researchers in developing the particles, which are described Jan. 31 in Science as forming “living crystals” in the right chemical conditions....................


..........Chaikin notes that life is difficult to define, but can be said to possess metabolism, mobility, and the ability to self-replicate. His crystals have the first two, but not the last.


Some scientists think that life’s building blocks once existed in such a form, bouncing back and forth for millions of years until coalescing in configurations that possessed the ability to copy themselves.

Add slight imperfections in the copies — mutations, in other words — and the necessary conditions for natural selection and evolution would be fulfilled.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

08 May 2015, 9:19 am

Janissy wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
So, if life cannot spontaneously arise from the right mixture of the right very complex and specialised organic molecules, I will maintain that life cannot possibly spontaneously arise from a loose mixture of CO2, H2O, N2, etc. etc.


loose mixture?.....no, not loose

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/living-crystal/


Quote:
Palacci and fellow NYU physicist Paul Chaikin led a group of researchers in developing the particles, which are described Jan. 31 in Science as forming “living crystals” in the right chemical conditions....................


..........Chaikin notes that life is difficult to define, but can be said to possess metabolism, mobility, and the ability to self-replicate. His crystals have the first two, but not the last.


Some scientists think that life’s building blocks once existed in such a form, bouncing back and forth for millions of years until coalescing in configurations that possessed the ability to copy themselves.

Add slight imperfections in the copies — mutations, in other words — and the necessary conditions for natural selection and evolution would be fulfilled.
Uh huh! Magic and fantastic speculation, even when it defies observation and experiment, becomes "science" if it is convenient to the Materialist ideology.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

08 May 2015, 9:51 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Even in the case of death by asphyxiation all the chemical elements that were present in the live organism remain in the dead one, practically all of which retain their structural integrity for a short while. All that is missing is that metaphysical stuff that makes them all work.

And, even though all the very complex and specialised chemical infrastructure is present, it does not spontaneously re-animate itself into another live organism.

So, if life cannot spontaneously arise from the right mixture of the right very complex and specialised organic molecules, I will maintain that life cannot possibly spontaneously arise from a loose mixture of CO2, H2O, N2, etc. etc.

Again, depends how you define life - laymen think that having a heart restarted means you've been "brought back to life". In that instance, clearly life can restart...

Life began as simple, prokaryotic, unicellular life. These cases of eukaryotes not coming back to life spontaneously are something else altogether - something complex has stopped life working, and it isn't about to just fix itself again. For example, if you die of asphyxiation, then you'd need to start breathing again in order to come back to life. You can't start breathing without brain activity, and you aren't going to get that without oxygen...
How do you know where, or when, or how life "began". Were you, or someone you know and trust, there to witness all the known, relevant, Laws of Nature being broken, superseded, or abrogated?

I'm not talking about an almost extinguished life being restored to an organism that had almost lost it... I'm talking about a brand new life spontaneously arising from the physical remnants of a dead organism. F'instance, there'd be more than enough physical remnants in a dead rabbit to make a new rat; or even some other grotesque, previously unheard of, new species.

"Brain activity" is another very interesting contemplation; for much later. Let's deal with the elementary fundamentals first.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

08 May 2015, 10:23 am

Oldavid wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
So, if life cannot spontaneously arise from the right mixture of the right very complex and specialised organic molecules, I will maintain that life cannot possibly spontaneously arise from a loose mixture of CO2, H2O, N2, etc. etc.


loose mixture?.....no, not loose

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/living-crystal/


Quote:
Palacci and fellow NYU physicist Paul Chaikin led a group of researchers in developing the particles, which are described Jan. 31 in Science as forming “living crystals” in the right chemical conditions....................


..........Chaikin notes that life is difficult to define, but can be said to possess metabolism, mobility, and the ability to self-replicate. His crystals have the first two, but not the last.


Some scientists think that life’s building blocks once existed in such a form, bouncing back and forth for millions of years until coalescing in configurations that possessed the ability to copy themselves.

Add slight imperfections in the copies — mutations, in other words — and the necessary conditions for natural selection and evolution would be fulfilled.
Uh huh! Magic and fantastic speculation, even when it defies observation and experiment, becomes "science" if it is convenient to the Materialist ideology.


Read the article I linked. No magic but admittedly speculation. However, this speculation is based on,rather than defying, observations of an experiment.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

08 May 2015, 10:30 am

Oldavid wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Even in the case of death by asphyxiation all the chemical elements that were present in the live organism remain in the dead one, practically all of which retain their structural integrity for a short while. All that is missing is that metaphysical stuff that makes them all work.

And, even though all the very complex and specialised chemical infrastructure is present, it does not spontaneously re-animate itself into another live organism.

So, if life cannot spontaneously arise from the right mixture of the right very complex and specialised organic molecules, I will maintain that life cannot possibly spontaneously arise from a loose mixture of CO2, H2O, N2, etc. etc.

Again, depends how you define life - laymen think that having a heart restarted means you've been "brought back to life". In that instance, clearly life can restart...

Life began as simple, prokaryotic, unicellular life. These cases of eukaryotes not coming back to life spontaneously are something else altogether - something complex has stopped life working, and it isn't about to just fix itself again. For example, if you die of asphyxiation, then you'd need to start breathing again in order to come back to life. You can't start breathing without brain activity, and you aren't going to get that without oxygen...


How do you know where, or when, or how life "began". Were you, or someone you know and trust, there to witness all the known, relevant, Laws of Nature being broken, superseded, or abrogated?



The Walrus wasn't there. No people were. But eyewitness evidence is not the only (or even the most reliable) type of evidence. Let's look at his claim that "life began as simple, prokaryotic, unicellular life". Clearly eyewitness evidence is not possible. But there are other forms of evidence:

http://classroom.synonym.com/evidence-proves-prokaryotes-existed-before-eukaryotes-18397.html

Quote:
Microscopic Remains
When you think of fossils, you probably think of shells and bones, so it might surprise you to discover that microorganisms account for between one quarter and one half of all fossils ever described by scientists. Though they lack skeletons, a few groups of single-celled organisms have hard portions or secrete hard shells and so appear in the fossil record. This record is the best indication of prokaryotes' and eukaryotes' relative ages. The oldest prokaryotic fossils are 3.5 billion years old, while the oldest eukaryotes are relative newcomers, having fossilized for the first time a mere 1.5 billion years ago.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

08 May 2015, 11:36 am

Janissy wrote:
Read the article I linked. No magic but admittedly speculation. However, this speculation is based on,rather than defying, observations of an experiment.
The article only indicates that an intelligently contrived compound can float around connecting and disconnecting stimulated (powered) by light. Your computer is more "alive" than that substance. It's an intelligent contrivance that is a credit to its creators and may have some useful application somewhere, sometime.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

08 May 2015, 12:00 pm

Janissy wrote:
The Walrus wasn't there. No people were. But eyewitness evidence is not the only (or even the most reliable) type of evidence. Let's look at his claim that "life began as simple, prokaryotic, unicellular life". Clearly eyewitness evidence is not possible. But there are other forms of evidence:

http://classroom.synonym.com/evidence-proves-prokaryotes-existed-before-eukaryotes-18397.html

Quote:
Microscopic Remains
When you think of fossils, you probably think of shells and bones, so it might surprise you to discover that microorganisms account for between one quarter and one half of all fossils ever described by scientists. Though they lack skeletons, a few groups of single-celled organisms have hard portions or secrete hard shells and so appear in the fossil record. This record is the best indication of prokaryotes' and eukaryotes' relative ages. The oldest prokaryotic fossils are 3.5 billion years old, while the oldest eukaryotes are relative newcomers, having fossilized for the first time a mere 1.5 billion years ago.
So, you still think you can intimidate me with unsubstantial assertions of presumed "billions of years" where rocks are dated by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rocks?

The mere fact that imperfectly preserved remains of organisms that are not known to survive in the present day exist in solidified mud does not "prove" that they morphed into what does survive today.

A Scientific Method is completely abhorrent to zealots with an ideology to sell.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,617

08 May 2015, 12:54 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Janissy wrote:
The Walrus wasn't there. No people were. But eyewitness evidence is not the only (or even the most reliable) type of evidence. Let's look at his claim that "life began as simple, prokaryotic, unicellular life". Clearly eyewitness evidence is not possible. But there are other forms of evidence:

http://classroom.synonym.com/evidence-proves-prokaryotes-existed-before-eukaryotes-18397.html

Quote:
Microscopic Remains
When you think of fossils, you probably think of shells and bones, so it might surprise you to discover that microorganisms account for between one quarter and one half of all fossils ever described by scientists. Though they lack skeletons, a few groups of single-celled organisms have hard portions or secrete hard shells and so appear in the fossil record. This record is the best indication of prokaryotes' and eukaryotes' relative ages. The oldest prokaryotic fossils are 3.5 billion years old, while the oldest eukaryotes are relative newcomers, having fossilized for the first time a mere 1.5 billion years ago.
So, you still think you can intimidate me with unsubstantial assertions of presumed "billions of years" where rocks are dated by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rocks?

The mere fact that imperfectly preserved remains of organisms that are not known to survive in the present day exist in solidified mud does not "prove" that they morphed into what does survive today.

A Scientific Method is completely abhorrent to zealots with an ideology to sell.


FIRST, I cannot believe anyone is even arguing the issue with you Oldavid, whether or not evolution and common ANIMAL ancestry is real, as we can see it now, IN fetuses, JUST LIKE YOU AND ME, who grow a tail first and then lose it.

So yeah; friend, at one point in your life AND MINE, you have a tail just like the other animals, WE all evolved together with, with common genetics and DNA.

I have a girlfriend onetime who relates a tale that she is BORN with a tail; so they just cut it off, like they do with that foreskin thingy that we naturally share with other animals too.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist who looks at that REAL TIME EVIDENCE TO SEE THAT WE HAVE COMMON ancestry;
that's JUST COMMON SENSE FOR ANYONE WHO IS NOT TOO AFRAID TO BE human and just another animal too, with their 'tail stuck between their legs' of good measure in metaphor of FEAR OF THE EXISTENTIAL intelligence of the OBVIOUS RELATIONSHIP TO THE REST OF NATURE.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/ancient-genes-embryos.htm

Otherwise, explain where the human embryo tail comes from; is your imaginary GOD separated from nature responsible for that; or is the devil with a 'tale' that made that reality that WE CAN SEE NOW.

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD; THE GOD OF NATURE; clearly visible and clearly evidenced everywhere humans go in life.

And the fact that we all share the same origins of evolution is only cause to celebrate as that makes all the other animals, and even inanimate objects that carry the same frigging atoms in constant movement; as our 'closest relatives' too.

People go through their entire life imagining a fake GOD; and imagining a FAKE HEAVEN AFTER DEATH, WHEN WE ARE ALREADY BLESSED BY THE GOD OF NATURE TO EXPERIENCE THAT IN THE HERE AND NOW; as now IS ALL THAT EXISTS.

YOU ARE BLINDED by 'your simple minded religion' to no longer even have the 'eyes' of Nature that is GOD in you that can be more FULLY EXPRESSED IN THE METAPHOR OF EMOTIONAL AND SENSORY SPIRIT.

And truly that is not stupid; that is plain sad; as someone spoon feEDS you that non-sense just to control you for materialistic gains, and repress and oppress your GOD GIVEN HUMAN NATURE,

AS JUST ANOTHER FRIGGING ANIMAL ENJOYING LIFE; to the "real devil's" rule of imaginary GOD and DEVIL,

AS TWO FRIGGING SEPARATE PARTS OF A GOD OF NATURE THAT IS TRULY WHOLE; that we cannot separate from, even in death, as we just go back to the whole of where we come, as dust to dust as star stuff is.

And if that is not what you believe, 'be a man', and tell us the truth of what you do believe; or hide behind it and never let us know; there is no way this foolishness of not believing in the simple truth of classic evolution happens; without the lies of a religion that wants to dominate others for selfish needs,

OR SOME OTHER CULT OF THINKING IN ABSTRACT IMAGINARY WAYS.

AND TO BE CLEAR IMAGINATION AND CREATIVITY ARE OF COURSE
THE PINNACLE OF HUMAN GREATER POTENTIAL; BUT THAT CAN
EITHER RESULT IN DREAMS

OR NIGHTMARES COME TRUE;
AS THE TRUE LIGHT AND DARK
HUMANKIND BUILDS AS CULTURE,
in all the forms that comes in, for now,
and in the past, that makes now what it is,
in full cultural reality.

This ideology promoted by religions that humans are separate and special from NATURE AS GOD, AS a fairy tale somewhere 'out there', and there are 72 virgins awaiting after death for accomplished suicide bombers, or some pearly gates with golden floors is for 'real fools'; who are too afraid to use their own GOD OF NATURE GIVEN innate, instinct, intuition AND INTELLECT TO SEE THE REALITY OF THE ONE GOD OF NATURE inside them, outside them, above so below, ALL AROUND THEM, LEARN ABOUT IT; AND LIVE IN BALANCE WITH IT, AND SIMPLY THRIVE.

BUT FOR 'closed minded folks'; which is another genetic associated thingy of way of 'human conservative thinking'; 'they' will find any excuse possible; to see something other than the truth AND LIGHT ; as ONE OF the most powerful of all human normal healthy instincts, is that for social acceptance; and people will believe almost any frigging lie, from female genital mutilation to martyring life; IF someone says goodbye, instead of being part of a lying or telling the truth group of socially cooperative human beings with dark or light intentions as part of that natural consequence of action.

We live in a society today, where it IS possible to go one's own way,
with the interdependent relationship of modern culture and technology in tow;
and become once again, overall, what we are naturally evolved to be as just another wild,
and in our case partially domesticated animal.

If we cannot convince you why you have a tail THAT MEANS YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER FRIGGING MAMMAL, FROM The TIME YOU ARE A FETUS WITH SIMILAR ANCESTORS; THAN you cannot see far enough between your own legs, to even know what you are; And that is sad my friend; but a sad truth it seems; that you may never overcome until you

'BOW DOWN TO THE GOD OF NATURE' and truly hold your ANIMAL head high; like a Lion on the Savannah; with the grace of GOD of wings of seagulls who do not read frigging lies IN 'big black books',

OR ARE LIMITED TO text of science that CAN LIMIT artful ways of living THROUGH A LIFE OF MECHANICAL COGNITION RATHER THAN SOCIAL FEELING IMAGINATIVE CREATIVE EMPATHIC PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE COGNITION EXISTENCE for EXISTENTIAL INTELLIGENCE WITH TRUTH and LIGHT IN POSITIVE WAYS OF LIVING LIFE.

INSTEAD, of the lies of other humans propagated for some 3500 year now, or more, IN BIBLES OR SCIENCE THAT can NOT evidence the whole emotional and sensory truth AND LIGHT of the synergy and 'quantum' nature of the human mind unleashed and released for greatest human potential in mind and body balance.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

08 May 2015, 4:29 pm

Good-oh, Hogsy. It seems that your mind and soul are being touched (irked) by an unwelcome call to Earth. Reality is not just some sentimental exuberance that you make up as you go along. Reality is tough stuff that doesn't yield to fancies. It doesn't even yield to (almost) universally held fancies. It is not a "democratically elected or appointed" thing. It takes a hard head and a soft heart to appreciate it.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

08 May 2015, 4:34 pm

Oldavid wrote:
So, you still think you can intimidate me with unsubstantial assertions of presumed "billions of years" where rocks are dated by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rocks?

The mere fact that imperfectly preserved remains of organisms that are not known to survive in the present day exist in solidified mud does not "prove" that they morphed into what does survive today.

A Scientific Method is completely abhorrent to zealots with an ideology to sell.


Half-life is demonstrable, and chemically sound way of dating. There are multiple method that can be used to date the same fossil. This is the scientific method at work.

Cyanobacteria exist today, you can witness bacteria evolve in real time. There are missing link fossils, like pre-mammalian ancestors. There are living fossil. The DNA record tells a story, not one where animal suddenly appear, adapted to their environment.

I wonder what does evolution have to do with your interest in the metaphysical? You implying a catalyst, a consonant metaphysical intervention, a Buddhist idea of inter-connectivity?

It seem to me your whole thing is to not suggest and alternate model but complain about the scientific consensus.

It is just all so vague, and I'm not sure why it bother you so much what other people think.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,617

08 May 2015, 4:57 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Good-oh, Hogsy. It seems that your mind and soul are being touched (irked) by an unwelcome call to Earth. Reality is not just some sentimental exuberance that you make up as you go along. Reality is tough stuff that doesn't yield to fancies. It doesn't even yield to (almost) universally held fancies. It is not a "democratically elected or appointed" thing. It takes a hard head and a soft heart to appreciate it.


QFT:

"It takes a hard head and a soft heart to appreciate it"

That sums it up in a nutshell. But not a crazy one; smiles.

And trust me, the Zen ART of writing I put on the Internet,
is little of the flesh and blood that is me; always grounded
to earth in feet that are bare with sand in peace and passion.

There are three kinds of cats:

The inside cat that is pampered, spoiled, and FAT; and is mostly 'Jedi' Peaceful.

The outside cat that is 'SITH' IN NATURE, and fights with PASSIONATE WILL to survive.

And a mix of the Jedi and Sith CAT; THAT IS the inside outside cat.

I am an inside outside cat in balance; hard in physical nature
and passionate in spirit; with the ability to have a soft and
peaceful heart
too..:)

Jedi Sith am i..;)

And more....;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

08 May 2015, 5:37 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Half-life is demonstrable, and chemically sound way of dating. There are multiple method that can be used to date the same fossil. This is the scientific method at work.

Cyanobacteria exist today, you can witness bacteria evolve in real time. There are missing link fossils, like pre-mammalian ancestors. There are living fossil. The DNA record tells a story, not one where animal suddenly appear, adapted to their environment.

I wonder what does evolution have to do with your interest in the metaphysical? You implying a catalyst, a consonant metaphysical intervention, a Buddhist idea of inter-connectivity?

It seem to me your whole thing is to not suggest and alternate model but complain about the scientific consensus.

It is just all so vague, and I'm not sure why it bother you so much what other people think.
I am well aware of what a "half life" is. However, it is scientifically meaningless unless you know what the "original" constituents were.

Presently, I complain that the "scientific consensus" is not in the least "scientific"... that's enough for now.



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

08 May 2015, 7:21 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Oh My, please tell me you are trolling.You must be


Nope. He actually believes the nonsense.