The Beginning of Life (atheist, quote, God, Christians)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Toying with words, evasion and still not addressing the question is not clever Mystic, it just makes you look dishonest. Address the question and don't go off on an irrelevant preachfest of your personal doctrines.
How the hell do I answer you without using my views of the issues. Arq? You use your views. Why is my participation somehow different from yours. If the question assumes I am beating my wife but that is NOT true, how can I answer the question about beating my wife without pointing that out?
Amazing to read all the very different takes about how life began and evolution when all one needs to do is just a bit of honest effort to learn what is pretty well known by those in the know, and then just a touch of modesty to recognize you don't know what you should. More specifically, for example, no one yet knows how life began on Earth!
Quite so. But we know only too well that the modus operandi of so many god -apologists (not all) is to dismiss the evidence of science or Interpret it (for example in trying to show the switching sequence of DNA as something that could only have been designed by a cognisant mind.
This is of course futile as so much of their Theistic argument depends on what is remotely possible being taken as true until utterly disproven. But we know don't we that everything gets misused or dismissed in god -apologetics and the Truth doesn't matter - only winning.
Arach, as a chemist and atheist and believer in euphemisms, your question can be answered very easily - life is an "emergent" property of chemistry. Now, do you see why I balk at crediting such euphemistic nonsense as "explanations?"
You balk at emergent properties because they do not require a god, and you need to beg the question while ignoring all the people working on abiogenesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Stop talking about me and address the post. There was no sneering or deprecation involved. Given YOUR belief in euphemisms, why isn't Life an "emergent" property of chemistry??? Answer: Because it is an observation only and explains nothing!
You balk at emergent properties because they do not require a god, and you need to beg the question while ignoring all the people working on abiogenesis.
It explains what life is.
However, your hypothesis explains nothing.
Emergent properties explain nothing. They simply report what is observed to happen, NOT why it happens. Your hypotheses explain how whatever does exist functions NOT how or why it exists.
Emergent properties explain nothing. They simply report what is observed to happen, NOT why it happens. Your hypotheses explain how whatever does exist functions NOT how or why it exists.
Time once again for me to emergent my way out of this forum today...
There is what we know about why things happen, and there is what we don't know about why things happen. Then too of course there is what some people think they know about why things happen that science can't prove to be true or correct. For example, just like people used to think an Earthquake was caused by an angry God. Not true or correct even though some people thought they KNEW these were acts of God.
All right. You deprecate the idea of biochemicals becoming replicating DNA through a natural process as 'chemistry' and dismiss 'emergence' without any good reason suggesting that Arach (and anyone else) 'sees' it the way you do.
That miserable effort merits the terms I used.
Arach's response seems to show that he isn't fooled. Now I have to ask, are you taking a Creationist stance, not just of saying a Cosmic Mind was behind the process of Life, but of saying that it had to do it because it could not naturally 'emerge'? It seems to me that Arach is not so eager to dismiss the hypothesis if natural emergence of 'life' (of which I'd say that replication of the precursor of DNA was the start) as are you.
Not eager to dismiss the "natural emergence of life." I won't dismiss the natural emergence of life. That's exactly how I see it forming. Little pieces of the universe working to form bigger pieces of life. Or, stacks of reality working together to form everything we see.
I am just lucky to have be involved from spacetime to cosmic web. So I can change focus by factors of ten and still see the things in the various fields of science. I have experience with a lot of it.
basically, I saw a show once summarizing life on the planet. They said "by chance" like 8 times in 3 minutes. Thats when I thought? hmmm ... when do we say chance so many times its not chance?
do we have any classification that eliminate the notion of "By chance" and still fit what we see? and can we measure it?
Emergent properties explain nothing. They simply report what is observed to happen, NOT why it happens. Your hypotheses explain how whatever does exist functions NOT how or why it exists.
you have a point.
so look at the fact I say "little pieces" (atoms) form us. Assume we magically appeared as such. We are a result of the emergence.
Now look at how we form a cell in our bodies. Is the formation of every other cell in our bodies just "emergence"?
thats how I see the universe.
It came to be, we have no idea so we can assume its the first from little pieces of less complex stuff.
so look at the fact I say "little pieces" (atoms) form us. Assume we magically appeared as such. We are a result of the emergence.
Now look at how we form a cell in our bodies. Is the formation of every other cell in our bodies just "emergence"?
thats how I see the universe.
It came to be, we have no idea so we can assume its the first from little pieces of less complex stuff.
now the earth was formed in it.
I see you both having some merit.
Yes. So far as we can tell, the formation of everything in our bodies is 'emergence'. We grow according to a DNA template, assembling complex structures out of simpler ones like instant noodles and California Red.
What 'stuff' is at nano -level or how or why it appeared in the first place are all interesting questions, but they are irrelevant to how the world works, as explained by science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
How the hell do I answer you without using my views of the issues. Arq? You use your views. Why is my participation somehow different from yours. If the question assumes I am beating my wife but that is NOT true, how can I answer the question about beating my wife without pointing that out?
You are being ridiculous or dishonest, I don't know which. If you are beating your wife, or in this case a dead horse, you cannot get aout of it by saying that I don't know where your wife (or horse) came from. Observation of 'emergence' (as the clues it leaves) is all that is needed to validate it. 'What or Why' is irrelevant, other than (the only explanation I can think of for your foolishness or mental blockage) pointing to a gap for god in order to try to make 'God' the only answer. Unknowns are evidence of nothing, Mystic.
Amazing to read all the very different takes about how life began and evolution when all one needs to do is just a bit of honest effort to learn what is pretty well known by those in the know, and then just a touch of modesty to recognize you don't know what you should. More specifically, for example, no one yet knows how life began on Earth!
Take it from someone who has spent more than just a little time there...
Ooops, I'm the quilty party. I meant well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
