Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

LIFE; What is it?

Page 12 of 19 [ 292 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 May 2015, 7:55 pm

Janissy wrote:
They have genetic material and they attach to cells and inject that genetic material. That this injection happens mechanically rather than through any actual action on their part just adds to the confusion.
If that were so then it automatically demands that viruses are preceded by other irreducibly complex organisms that they can parasitise.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 May 2015, 8:03 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
For once David I tend to agree with you as do many origin of life scientists. There are many, many issues with the primordial soup hypothesis that tend to suggest it is not how life started. What is looking far more likely are deep thermal vents, and even life forming inside minerals. Deep thermal vents have much going for them as they remove many of the obstacles thrown up by the conditions on the surface of the earth at the time. But no doubt, in your grand wisdom you are going to say this is all nonsense nonscience, thought up by the religion of materialism yada yada yada.

Thing is David your intransigence regarding life only originating via a supernatural creator, teaches us nothing about what the reality might actually be. Sure you could be right, but so far creationists (although they deludedly refuse to admit it) have been proven wrong time and time again.

I do however have an interest in the thread title, one that goes beyond your simplistic agenda. And I am grappling with what does actually constitute life. One Author I have read suggests we all over simplify it, as in, "its something that replicates", "or something that metabolises", or "has a cell" etc. He sees it as a long, gradual, transition from organic chemistry to biology and there might not be an actual defining point.
Thermal vents, eh? Try something a bit more exotic like life originated in another universe where natural laws do not apply and was transported here through a "worm hole".

Do try to keep up with cutting edge nonsense. Your ideas are quite Neanderthal.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 May 2015, 8:14 pm

Of course it is David. If only the worlds research institutes would pass their theories by you, then your extraordinarily erudite methods of logic and philosophy could dismiss all the nonsense before it polluted the innocent minds of the masses.


_________________
"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


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 May 2015, 11:49 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Of course it is David. If only the worlds research institutes would pass their theories by you, then your extraordinarily erudite methods of logic and philosophy could dismiss all the nonsense before it polluted the innocent minds of the masses.
If only the worlds research institutes devoted themselves to science instead of ideological magic I would be completely redundant.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 May 2015, 12:35 am

Hmmm how is you describe the vast majprity of contemporary scientists and people like myself who learn from them? Something lile "egotistical fantascists"

Not sure how to respond to your above post, maybe I should take my lead from you.


_________________
"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


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 May 2015, 5:49 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Hmmm how is you describe the vast majprity of contemporary scientists and people like myself who learn from them? Something lile "egotistical fantascists"

Not sure how to respond to your above post, maybe I should take my lead from you.
No. Just do what you always do. Ignore anything inconvenient and re-assert your prejudices as if they had never been (or could never be) challenged.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

29 May 2015, 9:22 am

Oldavid wrote:
Janissy wrote:
They have genetic material and they attach to cells and inject that genetic material. That this injection happens mechanically rather than through any actual action on their part just adds to the confusion.
If that were so then it automatically demands that viruses are preceded by other irreducibly complex organisms that they can parasitise.

Not irreducibly complex (nothing in Biology is irreducibly complex), but yes, it seems likely that cell-like protobionts formed before the precursors to viruses.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

29 May 2015, 1:31 pm

Oldavid wrote:
No. Just do what you always do. Ignore anything inconvenient and re-assert your prejudices as if they had never been (or could never be) challenged.
it's ironic that you're telling other people this is what they're doing while doing it yourself. :lol:



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 May 2015, 7:17 pm

Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
No. Just do what you always do. Ignore anything inconvenient and re-assert your prejudices as if they had never been (or could never be) challenged.
it's ironic that you're telling other people this is what they're doing while doing it yourself. :lol:
I have never failed to address any of the mere assertions of the Materialist gang with good practical observations of the real world that soundly refute their impossible claims.

Their usual tactic is to simply ignore such refutations and "counter" with other vague, irrelevant accusations or assertions. It is a rhetorical tactic that is intended to just annoy or heckle your opponents into complete exasperation; nothing whatsoever to do with any genuine inquiry. It's something I encountered quite often at university if one ever tried to dispute any of the claims of the Maoist, Alinskyite "social reformers" of the day, although it took me a fair while to identify it as a purposeful tactic.

That said, you might accept that I don't re-refute every silly assertion every time it is re-presented.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 May 2015, 8:29 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
No. Just do what you always do. Ignore anything inconvenient and re-assert your prejudices as if they had never been (or could never be) challenged.
it's ironic that you're telling other people this is what they're doing while doing it yourself. :lol:
I have never failed to address any of the mere assertions of the Materialist gang with good practical observations of the real world that soundly refute their impossible claims.

Their usual tactic is to simply ignore such refutations and "counter" with other vague, irrelevant accusations or assertions. It is a rhetorical tactic that is intended to just annoy or heckle your opponents into complete exasperation; nothing whatsoever to do with any genuine inquiry. It's something I encountered quite often at university if one ever tried to dispute any of the claims of the Maoist, Alinskyite "social reformers" of the day, although it took me a fair while to identify it as a purposeful tactic.

That said, you might accept that I don't re-refute every silly assertion every time it is re-presented.


Hilariously, you don't even realise that you have just proved Fugu's point.


_________________
"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


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 May 2015, 10:59 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Hilariously, you don't even realise that you have just proved Fugu's point.
I need to be more careful not to be goaded into a blind alley full of psycho-thugs. Eh?

Anyhow, there is still no evidence that life is, or could be, the spontaneous action of some random chemicals.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

29 May 2015, 11:10 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Janissy wrote:
They have genetic material and they attach to cells and inject that genetic material. That this injection happens mechanically rather than through any actual action on their part just adds to the confusion.
If that were so then it automatically demands that viruses are preceded by other irreducibly complex organisms that they can parasitise.

Not irreducibly complex (nothing in Biology is irreducibly complex), but yes, it seems likely that cell-like protobionts formed before the precursors to viruses.
If you think about it carefully, all biology is irreducibly complex to a degree. Remove just one of life's necessities and your life is dead.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

30 May 2015, 12:34 am

Oldavid wrote:
Anyhow, there is still no evidence that life is, or could be, the spontaneous action of some random chemicals.


Wrong. There is plenty of evidence that life could arise from a gradual process of ever increasing chemical and mineral complexity.


_________________
"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


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

30 May 2015, 5:45 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Anyhow, there is still no evidence that life is, or could be, the spontaneous action of some random chemicals.


Wrong. There is plenty of evidence that life could arise from a gradual process of ever increasing chemical and mineral complexity.
Assertions are not evidence... no matter who makes the assertions. Evidence will stand up to scrutiny.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,594

30 May 2015, 9:41 am

Oldavid wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Janissy wrote:
They have genetic material and they attach to cells and inject that genetic material. That this injection happens mechanically rather than through any actual action on their part just adds to the confusion.
If that were so then it automatically demands that viruses are preceded by other irreducibly complex organisms that they can parasitise.

Not irreducibly complex (nothing in Biology is irreducibly complex), but yes, it seems likely that cell-like protobionts formed before the precursors to viruses.
If you think about it carefully, all biology is irreducibly complex to a degree. Remove just one of life's necessities and your life is dead.


That's simple. That's because Biology

is the science of life and not life itself.

Biology only measures stuff that can be

reduced with a scientific method

by way of material reductionism.

Not all of life can be reduced to that;

by the scientific method to consistently
observable and measurable phenomenon;

And OMG; that's just common sense, as science doesn't
even have the full process of why folks get depressed 'figured out'.

To me it is simple;
Depression is a sign
of 'sick' ways of living;

A 'sign' from the God of Nature.

Anyone who doesn't feel good; most anyone;
is simply not living by the laws of the All Natural GOD;

And honestly; that's why most folks come to the Wrong Planet;

as they are simply lost from the rules of the God of Nature; and
caught
in the
illusions
of a society
gone truly mad,
in many sitting still,
non-flesh and blood,
connecting to each
other, ways

of
life.

Planets can not 'survive',
if they do not constantly
move and humans
suffer for
the lack
of that.

It's as simple as any
social animal foraging
for existence. To move
is to live; to sit still
is to
die;
same stuff;
different
ways of
screwing
up...;)


_________________
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

30 May 2015, 9:55 pm

That life exists in all its complexity is a cold, hard objective fact that can be known with certainty by observation and experiment. Just what it is is beyond empirical science because it is a metaphysical thing... and it is certainly not just an agglomeration of atoms and chemicals, as can be seen where a dead thing may contain exactly the same chemicals and atoms as the previously live thing. You cannot make a dead thing live by just shifting it around (movement).

Why people get depressed is not a matter for empirical science, as you infer, and it is not something that can be "fixed" by physical displacement (movement).

I'm jolly glad that the people who make aeroplanes have a much more objective approach to physical reality than you do, 'Ghogsy.