Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

Did I say I believed that? Also, what is "replicating life," and in what ways is it distinct from "non-replicating life"?

No but you're using it to argue against a simple statement that should be obvious. That is, some molecule (or anything) must have started to replicate or we wouldn't be here. If you don't believe that is true then you must believe that there has always been replicating "life". If you don't believe it to be true then you're just trolling.

Upon what basis can you insist I defend a claim I've never made?

I'd like to see some arguments for the eternal "life" premise. If you have any then you can provide them, if not then you can accept that life must have had a beginning. Or you can continue to troll me.

And your evidence for that claim is... ?

Get out from under your bridge but I'm not paying the toll.

Can you define "life"? If not, then how would you even know if it always existed or not?

Are you alive? Have humans always existed? Have fish? Have bacteria? Have viruses? Is a rock alive?

1.) I never said I think that. I merely pointed out that it isn't known to be false.

But there is no reason to believe it is true. The universe could have come into existence yesterday and everybody was implanted with their memories. That isn't known to be false either. There just isn't any reason to believe it is true.

2.) You can't tell us what "life" is, but yet you seem awfully certain about when it did and didn't exist. You don't see the problem with that?

No I don't because I don't think I need to provide dictionary definitions to all of my words. While life is difficult to define it isn't impossible to give a basic framework to the concept. So take any biology book and take that definition of life and move on.

 

[buckshot24]

Buckshot??

Do you believe that the formation of life was through unguided chemistry or some other non-intelligence guided process? If so then that is what you believe without evidence.

 

[JD50]

Do you believe that the formation of life was through unguided chemistry or some other non-intelligence guided process? If so then that is what you believe without evidence.

We do not know for sure how life formed, that's why we're always testing different theories.

 

[buckshot24]

We do not know for sure how life formed, that's why we're always testing different theories.

We don't need to know exactly how it was formed to believe the things I mentioned in my last post. Do you believe it was unguided, yes or no?

 

[Paul98]

Do you believe that the formation of life was through unguided chemistry or some other non-intelligence guided process? If so then that is what you believe without evidence.

There is lots of evidence as I have stated over and over again.

 

[buckshot24]

There is lots of evidence as I have stated over and over again.

Yet, you have produced any of it.

Every observed instance where a living thing began to exist it came from other life.

 

[Paul98]

Yet, you have produced any of it.

Every observed instance where a living thing began to exist it came from other life.

I am not going to keep on writing the same thing over and over again, I have already stated it.

 

[soulcougher73]

We don't need to know exactly how it was formed to believe the things I mentioned in my last post. Do you believe it was unguided, yes or no?

That answer is unknowable at the moment. That is the beauty of science. It looks for the answers without making them up. We may never know the answer to your question, but that doesnt mean we should give up trying to figure it out. Religious people claim they already have the answer with no proof what so ever (and a book written by men is not an answer). They are the defination of retarded in my book.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No but you're using it to argue against a simple statement that should be obvious.

1.) No, I'm not.

2.) You've supplied no evidence for this "obvious" statement.

That is, some molecule (or anything) must have started to replicate or we wouldn't be here.

I've shown this statement to be false.

If you don't believe that is true then you must believe that there has always been replicating "life". If you don't believe it to be true then you're just trolling.

This is false. There may in fact be a first living organism, but we cannot deduce that one exists from the simple fact that we exist, as you have argued, and for reasons I've already given.

I'd like to see some arguments for the eternal "life" premise. If you have any then you can provide them, if not then you can accept that life must have had a beginning. Or you can continue to troll me.

Why should I provide arguments to support a claim I have not made?

Get out from under your bridge but I'm not paying the toll.

That is not evidence for your claim. For a person that whinges so much about evidence from other people -- even for claims that nobody has made -- you seem loathe to supply any for the claims you've actually made. Who's trolling who, now?

Are you alive? Have humans always existed? Have fish? Have bacteria? Have viruses? Is a rock alive?

I don't know. I'm asking you. If you don't know, then you have no basis for your claims.

But there is no reason to believe it is true. The universe could have come into existence yesterday and everybody was implanted with their memories. That isn't known to be false either. There just isn't any reason to believe it is true.

That's absolutely right. It remains that your claims which suppose it to be false that life has always existed are without merit.

No I don't because I don't think I need to provide dictionary definitions to all of my words.

Gee, that sounds and awful lot like an excuse why you can't actually define "life."

While life is difficult to define it isn't impossible to give a basic framework to the concept. So take any biology book and take that definition of life and move on.

No. I want to know which definition of life describes the totality of living things and at the same time has not been instatitated in reality for the totality of history. That is your claim, and that is your burden. Your failure to fulfill it is tantamount to the concession that you're simply talking out of your ass.

 

[Retro Rob]

They are the defination of retarded in my book.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yet, you have produced any of it.

Every observed instance where a living thing began to exist it came from other life.

And yet you believe in at least one living thing that did not come from a living thing.

 

[buckshot24]

1.) No, I'm not.

Yes you are.

2.) You've supplied no evidence for this "obvious" statement.

I haven't supplied any evidence that water is wet. Do you disagree with that as well?

I've shown this statement to be false.

No you haven't. What you've demonstrated is that you don't have any useful answers. Nobody here (including you) thinks that life has always existed.

This is false. There may in fact be a first living organism, but we cannot deduce that one exists from the simple fact that we exist, as you have argued, and for reasons I've already given.

Then you must think it is a real possibility that life has always existed. You don't believe this, you're trolling.

Why should I provide arguments to support a claim I have not made?

Why should I accept your usage in it as refutation of what I've claimed?

That is not evidence for your claim.

No it is acknowledgement of your activities in this thread, troll.

For a person that whinges so much about evidence from other people -- even for claims that nobody has made -- you seem loathe to supply any for the claims you've actually made. Who's trolling who, now?

Just say you don't have any evidence for your belief in abiogenesis.

I don't know. I'm asking you. If you don't know, then you have no basis for your claims.

You're lying. You do know.

That's absolutely right. It remains that your claims which suppose it to be false that life has always existed are without merit.

Yet you don't believe life has always existed.

Gee, that sounds and awful lot like an excuse why you can't actually define "life."

Sure I can.

No. I want to know which definition of life describes the totality of living things and at the same time has not been instatitated in reality for the totality of history.

It doesn't matter what the definition of "life" is. You can use any definition that you like from any biology text book. But, in talking about a self replicating molecule you don't even need to talk about it in those terms. This thing was simply (according to the fairy tale) copying itself. It needn't be defined as "living" in order to talk about it.

My claim is simple. Everybody (even you) knows that people and animals are "alive". However you want to define the term, it doesn't matter. If you put a gun to your head and blow your brains out, you'll most likely not be living. Doctors can tell quite easily whether you're alive or not. They can also tell that a rock is not alive. Where you draw the line between a rock and you is irrelevant, absolutely 100% irrelevant. Unless you want me to prove to you that a rock is not "alive". I wouldn't be surprised actually.

Also I'm not claiming that the proposed first replicating thing need to be defined as "life".

That is your claim, and that is your burden. Your failure to fulfill it is tantamount to the concession that you're simply talking out of your ass.

You're just pulling a Clinton on me to avoid the ugly reality that you really have no evidence in support of your belief that life came about by unguided chemical reactions.

 

[buckshot24]

And yet you believe in at least one living thing that did not come from a living thing.

Define living. Define belief. Define yet.:sneaky:

 

[buckshot24]

I am not going to keep on writing the same thing over and over again, I have already stated it.

Sorry bud, I must have missed it.

 

[buckshot24]

That answer is unknowable at the moment. That is the beauty of science. It looks for the answers without making them up.

So you're open to intelligent agents causing it?

We may never know the answer to your question, but that doesnt mean we should give up trying to figure it out.

My question is if it was guided or unguided.

Religious people claim they already have the answer with no proof what so ever (and a book written by men is not an answer). They are the defination of retarded in my book.

You should learn to spell before calling people retarded. Looks bad.

 

[JD50]

We don't need to know exactly how it was formed to believe the things I mentioned in my last post. Do you believe it was unguided, yes or no?

As I've said a few times, I do not know.

Edit - Also, as we've gone over multiple times, the problem with believing in a creator is answering the question "who created the creator"

 

[Paul98]

Sorry bud, I must have missed it.

You responded to it....

 

[Darwin333]

Do you think a for minivan can form without aid of intelligent agents? The process where this meager replication occurs is no less designed than the van.

Shrug, a van is much better designed and as far fewer flaws...

Based upon what evidence?

Based upon the best of our current knowledge. I actually looked it up, the oldest uncontested fossilized life found is 3.2 billion years old. There are other samples that scientists are debating (the debate is if the fossil is "just" 3.65B years OR 3.85B years, no real debate about the 3 billion part though) but it is very well accepted that simple life started over 3 billion years ago on Earth. It would then take a very long time, approximately 1.5 billion years per our current evidence, for that very simple single cell life to evolve into the multicellular life. It would then take another long ass period to evolve into complex life such as worms and jellyfish and simple plants that would eventually lead to the life we see today (roughly 700 million years ago again per our best evidence).

Obviously we haven't found all of the fossils to be found yet so who knows, maybe those numbers will change (longer not shorter) but that is to the best of our current knowledge.

I'm talking about the solution and entire process used in this experiment. It is impossible to form outside of the lab, period. This would never happen given a trillion years.

We tend to try to mimic nature and when we do we do it rather poorly. Nature is much better at doing stuff like that than we are and nature does have time on its side. I obviously can't offer any firm proof on the specific topic but that doesn't make the experiment any less intriguing.

I'm talking about this experiment. I'm not even talking about God. The process they used to get these molecules employed extreme tinkering by intelligent agents.

Well, yes.... Thats generally the way experimentation starts out when we really aren't sure of something. Eventually someone will build off of this experiment (or others) and come up with a better one. The refinement process will continue until we have really good results. With that said, demonstrating that it IS possible is a huge step.

 

[Darwin333]

I said the solution that the researchers created was impossible outside of a lab. I agree that this research has nothing to do with the beginning of life.

Well, where is it?

The entirety of the fossil record?

 

[buckshot24]

You responded to it....

Then you didn't provide any evidence.

 

[buckshot24]

Shrug, a van is much better designed and as far fewer flaws...

Did you read what they had to do to get the replication they got?

Based upon the best of our current knowledge. I actually looked it up, the oldest uncontested fossilized life found is 3.2 billion years old. There are other samples that scientists are debating (the debate is if the fossil is "just" 3.65B years OR 3.85B years, no real debate about the 3 billion part though) but it is very well accepted that simple life started over 3 billion years ago on Earth. It would then take a very long time, approximately 1.5 billion years per our current evidence, for that very simple single cell life to evolve into the multicellular life. It would then take another long ass period to evolve into complex life such as worms and jellyfish and simple plants that would eventually lead to the life we see today (roughly 700 million years ago again per our best evidence).

The existence of life isn't evidence that it started with unguided chemical processes.

We tend to try to mimic nature and when we do we do it rather poorly.

There is no way that they were trying to mimic nature.

Nature is much better at doing stuff like that than we are and nature does have time on its side. I obviously can't offer any firm proof on the specific topic but that doesn't make the experiment any less intriguing.

The experiment is interesting but it has nothing to do with origin of life. But you're employing "billions of years" did it. Time can't do anything.

Well, yes.... Thats generally the way experimentation starts out when we really aren't sure of something. Eventually someone will build off of this experiment (or others) and come up with a better one. The refinement process will continue until we have really good results. With that said, demonstrating that it IS possible is a huge step.

If they can refine it in a way that is at least semi plausible then I'll be impressed. what they have done so far, in my mind, is help solidify my belief that intelligence was required to start life. Plus the replication didn't work all that well.

 

[buckshot24]

As I've said a few times, I do not know.

So you're open to intelligence causing first life?

Edit - Also, as we've gone over multiple times, the problem with believing in a creator is answering the question "who created the creator"

That isn't a problem as has been explained to you.

But if this is a problem for a creator hypothesis then it is a problem for you as well. You've stated that you don't know how life began so eventually you get to a place where you have to say "I don't know" if you want to explain where you came from. So using your logic here we can't say that your parents "created" you because ultimately we don't know where they came from if you go back far enough.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes you are.

Not at all true. I've repeatedly explained to you that I do not believe that life has always existed, so it cannot be a basis for any of my arguments. My position is that your reasoning is unsound, and I have proven that.

I haven't supplied any evidence that water is wet. Do you disagree with that as well?

What difference does that make?

No you haven't. What you've demonstrated is that you don't have any useful answers. Nobody here (including you) thinks that life has always existed.

It may have. You haven't shown that it didn't.

Then you must think it is a real possibility that life has always existed. You don't believe this, you're trolling.

It is a real possibility. That is the point. Your claim that it cannot possibly be true because "if it didn't exist, then we aren't here" is an unsound argument.

Why should I accept your usage in it as refutation of what I've claimed?

Because you are not an imbecile, are you?

No it is acknowledgement of your activities in this thread, troll.

So not only can't you supply evidence, you struggle to accurately apprehend reality. Great.

You're lying. You do know.

No, I don't, and none of my arguments are premised upon any such purported knowledge. So, any answers?

Just say you don't have any evidence for your belief in abiogenesis.

What belief?

Yet you don't believe life has always existed.

Nope.

Sure I can.

Then let's see it.

It doesn't matter what the definition of "life" is.

It absolutely matters. The definition delineates what is and is not life. Without a rigorous definitions, the statements made that employ the term lack clear meaning.

But you wouldn't understand that, because clear and true meanings are not in the interest of your arguments.

You can use any definition that you like from any biology text book.

Not good enough. You have the parameters which are required, and if you cannot meet them, then you're just spruiking nonsense.

But, in talking about a self replicating molecule you don't even need to talk about it in those terms. This thing was simply (according to the fairy tale) copying itself. It needn't be defined as "living" in order to talk about it.

So what? I'm talking about "life."

My claim is simple. Everybody (even you) knows that people and animals are "alive".

How? What criteria do people and animals meet that fulfill the definition of "alive"?

However you want to define the term, it doesn't matter.

Ok, if I defined the term to mean "containing carbon as a constituent element," would that be a sufficient definition?

If you put a gun to your head and blow your brains out, you'll most likely not be living.

Not according to my definition just supplied.

Doctors can tell quite easily whether you're alive or not.

Sure, they just test for carbon, right?

They can also tell that a rock is not alive.

What if it contains carbon as a constituent element?

Where you draw the line between a rock and you is irrelevant, absolutely 100% irrelevant.

Really? REALLY?

Unless you want me to prove to you that a rock is not "alive". I wouldn't be surprised actually.

I quote myself, thusly, and like so...

I want to know which definition of life describes the totality of living things and at the same time has not been instatitated in reality for the totality of history. That is your claim, and that is your burden. Your failure to fulfill it is tantamount to the concession that you're simply talking out of your ass.

Also I'm not claiming that the proposed first replicating thing need to be defined as "life".

I have not accused you of making that claim. I just want to know how you know that a first living thing exists. Your original argument failed, yet you persist with this now naked and baseless claim, all the while spitting and hissing because someone has taken you to task on it.

You're just pulling a Clinton on me to avoid the ugly reality that you really have no evidence in support of your belief that life came about by unguided chemical reactions.

Where have I stated this as my belief? You appear to be arguing with a figment of your imagination. Did you forget your medication?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Define living. Define belief. Define yet.:sneaky:

I need not, because my usages are yours. You've only made a pitiful attempt to evade the fact which reveals your own intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Paul98]

Then you didn't provide any evidence.

No, you just didn't like that it contradicts what you think. You have yet to give an argument for why life couldn't come through chemistry into biology.


I guess I will try one last time with some simple evidence is.
Life started out simple and small
Chemistry can create compounds, amino acids, organic molecules, the building blocks of life
The conditions, and elements on earth are conducive to the chemistry to create these building blocks.
There was a lot of time over a large area to give a diverse set of conditions and a large number of chances for different things to happen.
Once replication starts and the environment is conducive, the number of these things will rapidly increase.