Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

what is life?


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#31    jdlsmith

jdlsmith

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined:18 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 14 October 2007 - 08:06 AM

Quote

JDL,
I am almost tired of saying this to the ignorant. Because we do not know something currently does not mean it will never be known, nor does it mean a "designer" had to do it. Yes those ideas were speculation. The reality is though, self-replicating molecules exist. Many, many, many types of them. If you are interested to see the vast number of them simply google scholar "Self replicating molecules".

Each day, each month, each year, biology, chemistry, physics and geology understand early earth more and more. Not only that, but we are building more evidence on the origins of life.

This is not speculation that because its "what I needed for evolution". I understand you are dumb and unwilling to budge in your silly beliefs, thats fine. Understand your beliefs, are simply beliefs. Also, evolution does not require a natural origin, no where in the theory of evolution is there a disclaimer that a "god" could have not provided the first cell. I however disagree with that belief, nothing has ever been shown to be of supernatural origin. I don't think that is going to change anytime soon.

Reality based theorizing? Do you really just how stupid you sound? You want reality based theorizing, yet you have stated that you believe it was god who created. So let me get this straight. You want more reality based theorizing, yet you want to appeal to the supernatural to solve your problem of the origin of life? Jesus.


"What if God created?" makes at least as much sense as "What if a self-replicating molecule became a living, reproducing, growing, cell?"

I understand that self-replicating molecules exist.. you can stop trying to win that point, b/c I've agreed with you from the start.  I know how they reproduce.  We aren't arguing that either.  I know how living cells reproduce, we agree on that as well.  In fact, I think you've conceded each point so far...  except that you think multi-step evolution had to happen, and I think it's literally impossible.  There are things your theory cannot answer (what was the origin of matter/energy?) and things mine can't answer (what's the origin of God).

Neither belief is stupid, in my opinion.  You simply believe what you've been taught by the sources you trust (you didn't do all the research yourself) and I believe what I've been taught by the sources I trust.   We both used multiple methods of examination and study to determine which sources we would trust, and the ones you trust are different from the ones I trust.  You think I am ignorant and stupid, uneducated and stubborn...  I think you are gullible in a sense as well as stubborn.  But, here's the key difference... I respect your beliefs and opinions and you don't respect mine.  You, my friend, are arrogant.

Lastly, I hope that anyone who reads this can discern the truth...

JS


#32    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 14 October 2007 - 02:46 PM

Quote

"What if God created?" makes at least as much sense as "What if a self-replicating molecule became a living, reproducing, growing, cell?"

I understand that self-replicating molecules exist.. you can stop trying to win that point, b/c I've agreed with you from the start.  I know how they reproduce.  We aren't arguing that either.  I know how living cells reproduce, we agree on that as well.  In fact, I think you've conceded each point so far...  except that you think multi-step evolution had to happen, and I think it's literally impossible.  There are things your theory cannot answer (what was the origin of matter/energy?) and things mine can't answer (what's the origin of God).

Neither belief is stupid, in my opinion.  You simply believe what you've been taught by the sources you trust (you didn't do all the research yourself) and I believe what I've been taught by the sources I trust.   We both used multiple methods of examination and study to determine which sources we would trust, and the ones you trust are different from the ones I trust.  You think I am ignorant and stupid, uneducated and stubborn...  I think you are gullible in a sense as well as stubborn.  But, here's the key difference... I respect your beliefs and opinions and you don't respect mine.  You, my friend, are arrogant.

Lastly, I hope that anyone who reads this can discern the truth...

JS


There is a difference between us though, you seem to not be able to reconcile with. You think I need to have faith that the life on earth had a natural origin. I enjoy kicking around ideas, but I do not have faith it happened this way. Unlike you, I can admit I don't know how life started, science it seems can admit this as well. The only person with beliefs and faith in this regard is you, as you make the assumption because we don't know, it must have been god.

Yes both beliefs are stupid, if you do not know something, why believe it happened one way or the other.

I don't think your ignorant and stupid JDL, don't be so hard on yourself. I just think you don't know about evolution or biology (as evident from some of your posts). Remember ignorance is a state of mind, not a debilitation of ability. Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean you cannot fix the problem.


"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#33    jdlsmith

jdlsmith

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined:18 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:52 PM

Quote

There is a difference between us though, you seem to not be able to reconcile with. You think I need to have faith that the life on earth had a natural origin. I enjoy kicking around ideas, but I do not have faith it happened this way. Unlike you, I can admit I don't know how life started, science it seems can admit this as well. The only person with beliefs and faith in this regard is you, as you make the assumption because we don't know, it must have been god.

Yes both beliefs are stupid, if you do not know something, why believe it happened one way or the other.

I don't think your ignorant and stupid JDL, don't be so hard on yourself. I just think you don't know about evolution or biology (as evident from some of your posts). Remember ignorance is a state of mind, not a debilitation of ability. Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean you cannot fix the problem.


Heh, you do have faith, as much as I... maybe more.  You believe self-replicating molecules became reproducing, living, cells through the process of evolution.  You have argued that point hard, and lost fairly soundly.

I am not hard on myself, but your opinion of me is obvious.  Sadly, many atheistic scientists have that same attitude for anyone that doesn't believe the way they do.

I am not ignorant about evolution, as you keep repeating (and repeating, and repeating), I simply think your faith is misplaced, and that the people you learned from and trust didn't know what they were talking about...

JS


#34    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 16 October 2007 - 02:24 AM

Quote

Heh, you do have faith, as much as I... maybe more.  You believe self-replicating molecules became reproducing, living, cells through the process of evolution.  You have argued that point hard, and lost fairly soundly.

I am not hard on myself, but your opinion of me is obvious.  Sadly, many atheistic scientists have that same attitude for anyone that doesn't believe the way they do.

I am not ignorant about evolution, as you keep repeating (and repeating, and repeating), I simply think your faith is misplaced, and that the people you learned from and trust didn't know what they were talking about...

JS



JDL, are you reading disabled? I did not say I believe it happened this way with the self-replicating molecules, I mentioned it could have happened this way. How did it happen? I don't know. No one does.

Allow me to quote myself

Quote

Unlike you, I can admit I don't know how life started, science it seems can admit this as well.


The only one with a belief here is you sir. You are making an ad nauseum creationist argument, that everyone has to have a belief on how life started. I have stated many times to you now, that I do not know, this however does not mean god did. Lack of knowledge is not proof of religious hunch.

How have I lost? Because told you there were many ways for it (life) to be possible? Because I told you there is mounting evidence of for life having natural origins? And your oh so elite defense to go "(Sticks fingers in ears) La La La, I can't hear you, You don't know so god did it, La La La". Yea bud, you got me good there.

You are not ignorant about evolution? JDL, I have read numerous posts of yours now since you have been here on UM. You effectively fall between a small-word-using-creationist and I-can-use-kind-of-big-words-creationist. Your knowledge of evolution (however fun it maybe to indulge your own little fantasy) seems to be about a 6th or 7th grade level. No joke, that is what it sounds like. Right now you are trying to argue against evolution by arguing that origins of life are unknown. Seriously, I want you to stop and think about this.

You are saying evolution is wrong, because we don't know the origin of life.....

You came to the radiometric thread, asked what I presume to be your best "stumper" question, then got your science handed to you. You came on the Evolution vs creationism thread touting a global Noahide flood, which again your science was handed to you. You attempted some lame post at explaining NS, which someone should have handed your science too you (frankly I think people in the know realized you would be too ignorant and unwilling to listen). And finally you make comments like this:

Quote

Of course, I believe that Young Earth is really the 'best fit' with science, I suppose however, that I could be proven wrong.



Which really proves my point. You simply have no idea what you are talking about and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Now, I want you to tell me, how in the world is it possible for anyone with any kind of proper science education to conclude that you are "not ignorant" of evolution (Or geology, physics, chemistry and biology, for that matter)?

I know you feel the word ignorant is an insult, but it is not. Maybe it could motivate you to learn something? I suppose that would ruin your self-delusions of grandeur, can't have that as a Christian now can we?



To your final point there, I'll say it one more time. Evolution does not require faith, radiometric dating does not require faith, I have no faith in evolution, radiometric dating etc. You are the only one in this conversation with faith on how life began. Me? I simply do not know as there is not enough evidence to say how the mechanism of origins worked.

Edited by camlax, 16 October 2007 - 02:25 AM.

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#35    Ins0mniac

Ins0mniac

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,107 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tassie, Australia

Posted 16 October 2007 - 05:30 AM

I've heard that it is in fact very similar to a box of chocolates.

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea." - Douglas Adams

#36    jdlsmith

jdlsmith

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined:18 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 20 October 2007 - 09:00 AM

camlax on Oct 15 2007, 09:24 PM, said:

The only one with a belief here is you sir. You are making an ad nauseum creationist argument, that everyone has to have a belief on how life started. I have stated many times to you now, that I do not know, this however does not mean god did. Lack of knowledge is not proof of religious hunch.

Last time: You believe evolution.  You don't know how it happened, have no proof that it did, have some pretty insurmountable evidence against it, yet you believe 'in' it anyway.  I've seen enough of your posts on UM to know that...  you can't hide it.  You, sir, have a 'belief'.


Quote

You came to the radiometric thread, asked what I presume to be your best "stumper" question, then got your science handed to you. You came on the Evolution vs creationism thread touting a global Noahide flood, which again your science was handed to you.

Wrong.  I came to the thread, asked a few questions and even gave evidence 'against' my position in with my question for you, because I really don't know the answers and try to be objective.  I can admit when something doesn't fit with science...  something you seem incapable of.

While I may not be as scholarly as you would prefer, you seem to have an innate ability not to see the 'other side' of any argument... this is a serious flaw, and one which, when I was learning logic, we found to be a serious problem when trying to argue a specific point.  From your perspective all your arguments make perfect sense.  They also make perfect sense to anyone else with only that same perspective.  To the undecided, or anyone else with a different perspective (whether the opposing belief or not) they don't make sense.  It's obvious, over and over in this thread, that you did not understand what I meant about cell replication until I said Meiosis and Mitosis (which aren't really accurate terms for the discussion, but I think it finally sunk in).  And that's because you could not fathom my perspective the way I can understand yours.  If you want to become more effective in your discussions, you'll need to learn this...

Best of luck to you... and I'll see you around. wink2.gif



#37    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 21 October 2007 - 02:15 AM

jdlsmith on Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM, said:

Last time: You believe evolution.  You don't know how it happened, have no proof that it did, have some pretty insurmountable evidence against it, yet you believe 'in' it anyway.  I've seen enough of your posts on UM to know that...  you can't hide it.  You, sir, have a 'belief'.


Evolution does not require belief or leaps of faith. There is plenty of evidence it happened in the past. And we know it happens in the present, that is an observable fact. There have been pages and pages of posts on this board with intelligent people providing you evidence for evolution, you simply choose to ignore it so you can persist in your own delusion.

No biggie I guess. Waste of your time, not mine.



jdlsmith on Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM, said:

Wrong.  I came to the thread, asked a few questions and even gave evidence 'against' my position in with my question for you, because I really don't know the answers and try to be objective.  I can admit when something doesn't fit with science...  something you seem incapable of.


Radiometric dating fits very well with science....

I love how you crackpots think there is some great global conspiracy of science to force "non-scientific" things into science. In hindsight this dialog was about as pointless as one with some of the ET worshipers found here.


jdlsmith on Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM, said:

While I may not be as scholarly as you would prefer, you seem to have an innate ability not to see the 'other side' of any argument... this is a serious flaw, and one which, when I was learning logic, we found to be a serious problem when trying to argue a specific point.  From your perspective all your arguments make perfect sense.


You are not scholarly in anyway, no need to kid yourself. Nor have you shown any kind of logical conclusions for your belief other than to blunderously state "Evolution it not real, LALALAL, there is no proof, no evidence, LALALA, The universe is complex, LALALA, there was a firmament of water, LALALA". Yea, how scholarly of you JDL...


jdlsmith on Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM, said:

They also make perfect sense to anyone else with only that same perspective.  To the undecided, or anyone else with a different perspective (whether the opposing belief or not) they don't make sense.  It's obvious, over and over in this thread, that you did not understand what I meant about cell replication until I said Meiosis and Mitosis (which aren't really accurate terms for the discussion, but I think it finally sunk in).


Nooooooo, it was obvious you have no idea about biology....Don't lump me in with your misunderstanding to make yourself feel better. If you are going to be willfully ignorant at least wear it on your shirt like a man.


jdlsmith on Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM, said:

And that's because you could not fathom my perspective the way I can understand yours.  If you want to become more effective in your discussions, you'll need to learn this...


Been there, done that. I do fathom your perspective, it saddens me, I cannot understand how some people would willingly lie to themselves and others simply to promote a belief they have no evidence for and were likely indoctrinated into.

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#38    jdlsmith

jdlsmith

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined:18 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 21 October 2007 - 08:26 AM

camlax on Oct 20 2007, 09:15 PM, said:

Evolution does not require belief or leaps of faith. There is plenty of evidence it happened in the past. And we know it happens in the present, that is an observable fact. There have been pages and pages of posts on this board with intelligent people providing you evidence for evolution, you simply choose to ignore it so you can persist in your own delusion.


So you don't believe evolution happened or you do?  I'm getting confused... wink2.gif  

Or maybe you are?

Edited by jdlsmith, 21 October 2007 - 08:27 AM.


#39    camlax

camlax

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OH-IO

  • "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "
    -Carl Sagan

Posted 21 October 2007 - 02:50 PM

jdlsmith on Oct 21 2007, 04:26 AM, said:

So you don't believe evolution happened or you do?  I'm getting confused... wink2.gif  

Or maybe you are?



No, I don't need to believe in it, we know it happens, we observe it happens, we have mountains of evidence it happens. You can play your word games all day, that does not change the fact that evolution happens. It takes no belief system to understand a factual observation.

"Sorry, but my inner voice tells me to tell your inner voice the following:
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
Could you please relay that message to your inner voice?"
~Harte

"Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen."

#40    Repoman

Repoman

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2007

Posted 25 October 2007 - 03:20 PM

camlax on Oct 6 2007, 12:08 PM, said:

Anyway, you should get the point. There is plenty of evidence for self-replicating molecules.


You are merely casting pearls before swine (<=== A jesus quote) by trying to explain known scientific facts to dogma-riddled religious freak trolls.




#41    BELOWIM

BELOWIM

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 375 posts
  • Joined:11 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2007 - 03:42 PM

IS This AbOUT LIFE, I,m wondering!,  conception's of misreality are apparent , whatislife? gdhh..WE aRE that's life, biology Is, Realism is, We are a Being, and so is the rest of LIFE, apparently!?..


#42    deader5000

deader5000

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2007 - 07:51 PM

Jdl never said he doesn't believe in evolution happening, his point which you missed for the first 2 pages of this was that the chances of a single cell being born on earth with the ability to reproduce, (which would be needed at some point to start the evolution of life.) is extremely low.

So your arguements against what he said camlax are pointless .but anways you both are correct there was just a misunderstanding on what was being said.


#43    minaras

minaras

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Joined:04 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 January 2008 - 05:13 PM



1)Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we <> in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees thing in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.2)Nature does not promote a certain form of life,but what we see,is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history.




#44    minaras

minaras

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Joined:04 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 January 2008 - 08:21 PM

camlax on Oct 7 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

I would not say it was a problem, because evidence is starting to pile up that it did. Look JDL, I realize that there are some types of people in the world who would rather believe "because we don't understand it god must have done it". And I realize you are one of these people from reading your other posts. However, life starting on its own is not impossible, but rather probable as our understanding of early earth increases.

Your bolded comment shows how little you are understanding here. The mechanism is not known, that means there are lost of ways life could have arose, there is required 1 step for it all to happen in. As I stated above, evolution can work on biologically non living things. If you understand how evolution works then the development of more complex things, such as how cells reproduce should be no surprise to you.



Actually you are wrong again, and you again show your ignorant arguments how evolution works with your typical "such and such had to arise at the same time argument". We know self-replicating molecules exist. No one is saying evolution had to start acting on these molecules right away, as there may have been no mechanism for variation. Then something on earth changed and variation occurred. How? Thats not known, but that hardly requires a designer because it is unknown. Once you have variation, replication and a degree of inheritance, you are on your way.

Also, you seem to have missed some fundamentals of biology here. I think you are of the mind that first organisms on earth used sexual reproduction, meaning "there had to be two for it to work". The earliest organisms from Prokaryota and Archaea  did not reproduce sexually, they more or less clone themselves (like they still do today). So the whole 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4 thing going on here.




#45    minaras

minaras

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Joined:04 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 January 2008 - 08:23 PM

entropy of life



1)what is the difference between a man that is alive and a man that is dead?In both cases the body is consisted from the same elements and compounds.But in the first case these compounds are reacting with each other and the structure of the body changes every moment.In the second case the chemical reactions of the body are lead to an equillibrium and so the composition of the body remains unchanged.The structure of a dead man cannot change if there are not microorganisms in its environment.

2)The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seems to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.

3)The relativity of entropy

What happens with the ntropy of living systems that are chemical reactions?The energy that comes externally on earth in the form of light could explain the lowering of entropy.However ,if in the beggining there where 2 or 3 reactions and after a while there are more and more ,and more complicated, seems that the entropy of the whole living system on earth or else nature, is raising.But remember that previously we said that human is not a neutral observer of things, but he is changing together with the system.This confuses him.What impact has that?It means that if humans entropy is raising slower than whole living natures entropy ,he will think that his entropy is lowering.Its something like relativity of motion.One exaple is this :Imagine a large number of birds that are flying one next to other to the same direction.If we tell them to fly one far from the other,so the group will start separating, the entropy of the system will start raising.Imagine also that there are three birds that are very close to each other,somewhere in the group.If they separate with less speed than the others and we consider these 3 birds as a system,the systems entropy will actually lower relatively with the whole system of the birds.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users