How does life start?

[TeleMad]

Tim_Lou: so, you mean that souls dont exist?

 

Yes, that is my personal position.

[TeleMad]

Uncle Martin: Since you seem impervious to logical reasoning...

 

Gee, I'm sorry, can you please point out where you even attempted to use any from of valid logical reasoning? Please...go ahead...try...I challenge you.

 

 

 

All you've done is employ childish tactics. So it's no loss that you are dropping out...in fact, it's a gain for all posters.

[TeleMad]

Tormod: So I ask you: What is your opinion on how life formed in the first place?

 

I don't know how it happened, just that anyone who claims that it is a fact that life actually originated by by some particular method has no valid basis for such an assertion.

 

Tormod: (And for the record: you may be TeleMad but I am not TorMod - it's Tormod).

 

My bad...I've been doing in correctly in my last several posts.

[Tim_Lou]

"Tormod: So I ask you: What is your opinion on how life formed in the first place? "

 

yeah, what do you think telemad?

is it more toward a creator?

or special energy?

or carbon-->life?

[TeleMad]

Tim_Lou:

 

 

 

*********************

 

 

"Tormod: So I ask you: What is your opinion on how life formed in the first place? "

 

 

*********************

 

 

 

yeah, what do you think telemad?

 

 

 

is it more toward a creator?

 

 

 

or special energy?

 

 

 

or carbon-->life?

 

 

Well, to repeat my answer to Tormod....I don't know how it happened, just that anyone who claims that it is a fact that life actually originated by by some particular method has no valid basis for such an assertion.

 

 

 

The religious are free to believe that their God created life and science cannot demonstrate they are wrong...at least not yet (such a belief is often times referred to as "God of the gaps"). "Materialists" are free to believe there is no God and that life arose spontaneously, but they can't actually demonstrate either one. Since I am not a religious person, yet I also fail to fully accept something until I've been supplied with sufficient evidence, I do not hold any particular position on the origin of life issue (other than what I already stated - anyone who claims that life did in fact arise by some particular method has no valid basis for such an assertion).

[Tormod]

TeleMad -

 

I completely fail to see your line of thought. You obviously have not read any other posts in these forums, where we have discussed just about all the topics you are trying to be so smart about. You are not discussing anything, you are simply slamming other's attempts to provide you with their ideas. We have asked you for your own opinions but all you do is imply we are stupid, that we willfully mangle your posts, that we fit into some kind of "naturalistic scientist" group (although your claim that I might be a creationist gave me a good laugh).

 

Your argumentative method is not only laughable, you are also making yourself look absolutely ignorant of what others mean and say.

 

We had a discussion a while ago of "what it takes to prove the existence of god" which turned into a debate on what scientific proof is. You seem to forget that we are discussing theories, and you are slamming anyone who bring up a theory for which you do not have "sufficient" evidence. Don't you understand that stating what a theory says is *not* the same as believing that everything the theory implies is by necessity "truth"? It is impossible to bring "sufficient" evidence for a theory like the big bang - especially in a forum like this. We must expect people to be able to do some research on their own, *especially* when it comes to mainstream theories. Hell, we even have tons of articles, links and forum topics on many of them right here at Hypography.

 

It is completely valid, for the sake of argument, to say that life is a direct consequence of the big bang. It is a valid argument in this thread. There is, however, no reason to start a flame war like you have done.

 

I will quote the beginning of our FAQ here, since either you did not read it or did not understand it:

 

--------------

What kinds of topics are discussed here?

Basically, everything that falls within the labels above. We like to consider ourselves open minded, but we do not like to see commercials, arrogant comments, or flames.

 

How should I behave?

Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

 

1. If you make strange claims, please provide proof.

 

2. If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

 

3. Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.

 

4. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted.

 

5. If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get.

 

Violations of these ground rules might lead to banning without further notice.

----------

 

You are in violation of several of these terms (particularly number 2). Read the rest of the FAQ before you make any further posts.

 

Consider yourself warned - I will kick you out if you do not moderate your language and posting style. Show some respect and you might get some in return.

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

I had to play catchup. I had not been on for a while. I see that the discussion has been quite active. But all I see is a lot of talking "past" each other. It would seem some of it is either intentional or at least purposeful.

 

Telemad, you seem to have a very specific agenda. Here that typically means another Christian Fundy has found us. You seem to be coming from a postmodernistic bent. And you do not want to allow for anything that might be less than 100% proven. Otherwise it is all the same value. And since NOTHING is EVER 100% proven, EVERYTHING is equally valid.

 

And you will use whatever rhetorical process you can to stop open dialog. Most often just arguing to argue.

 

While I see Tormod and Unc getting frustrated trying to establish some agreed understandings. And Tim trying to insert his ubernatural agenda.

 

Telemad, you want to protend that the BB describes one instant in time with no factually proven relationship to all of the events that followed. Did the BB CREATE heavy elements? Not in your strict sense. But they are obviously part of the result of the process set in place by the BB. Or at least there is nothing else that provides even a basic explanation of how the heavier elements came into existence if we do not relate it to the BB.

 

The same lack of open dialog is found in the discussion of "spontaneous". Like Tormod and Unc, I would assign the concept of "instantaneous" to "spontaneous", which is in fact part of the def given by WWWebster "2 : arising from a momentary impulse". While Telemad wants to use "spontaneous" strictly as "6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated "

 

Beyond all of this however, Telemad seems to want to argue, NOT discuss. As if the difference noted are used to disagree with others, rather than explore the differences. No one else can be right unless they can prove their point 100%. Telemad is above accepting anything that is not 100%.

Originally posted by: TeleMad

Have you or FreeThinker literally disproven the existence of all possible> Gods? Don’t think so…no one has.

Just as no one has been able to test every rabbit that has, is or will be, to see if one could lay eggs. Therefore the Easter Bunny can not be rejected. Nor has anyone personally checked every sq in of the arctic circle, so we had better not reject Santa Claus.

 

In order to have an intellectual honest dialog, there has to be give and take. Telemad, you want to "give", your opinion, and seem to refuse to "take" any input from others. You do not seem to be interested in dialog. And you are upset that we won't just accept your postmoderistic rejection of reasoned science.

[TeleMad]

Tormod: You are not discussing anything, you are simply slamming other's attempts to provide you with their ideas.

 

Wrong.

 

 

 

(1) I have repeatedly made a point - that one can't legitimately state that it is an actual fact that life arose some particular method. The best they can do at this point in time is to state an assumption based on a philosophical position they hold.

 

 

 

(2) I have pointed out legitimate problems with some of the statements others here have made (such as misuses of the terms big bang, big bang theory, and spontaneous).

 

Tormod: We have asked you for your own opinions but all you do is imply we are stupid..

 

Stupid? No, I have neither said nor implied that.

 

 

 

 

But, I have pointed out that you misused the terms big bang, big bang theory, and spontaneous. How is it my fault that you did so? In any legitimate discussion forum, anyone who makes an error should expect to be corrected. Or is this not a legitimate discussion forum?

 

Tormod: ... that we willfully mangle your posts..

 

Wrong. That Uncle Martin mangled several of my statements. Uncle Martin is a single person - your use of "we" is incorrect. Are you Uncle Martin??

 

 

 

 

Also, I supported my charge against Uncle Martin with undeniable evidence. If you don't like the fact that Uncle Martin used underhanded tactics, then you've got a problem with him, not me.

 

Tormod: ...(although your claim that I might be a creationist gave me a good laugh).

 

Hey, you made the statements of a Creationist, not me. If one were take those statements of yours that I responded to and post them as is on any Creation/Evolution site, people would take them for those of a Creationist.

[Tormod]

I agree, Freethinker. There is no discussion in TeleMad. He is only here to pick fights. I'll let him linger for a while to see if he can manage to come up with anything even remotely interesting.

 

Tormod

[TeleMad]

FreeThinker: The same lack of open dialog is found in the discussion of "spontaneous". Like Tormod and Unc, I would assign the concept of "instantaneous" to "spontaneous", which is in fact part of the def given by WWWebster "2 : arising from a momentary impulse". While Telemad wants to use "spontaneous" strictly as "6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated "

 

'TeleMad' uses the term as scientists do...look in a chemistry text, or a physics text, or a biology text. This is supposed to be a science forum, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

Came back to post a couple…

 

 

 

******************************

 

 

 

 

“An exergonic reaction releases energy and is said to be a spontaneous or “downhill” reaction. The term spontaneous may give a false impression that such reactions are always instantaneous. In fact, spontaneous reactions do not necessarily occur readily; some are extremely slow. This is because energy, known as activation energy, is required to initiate every reaction, even a spontaneous one.” (Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R. Berg, & Diana W. Martin, Biology: Fifth Edition, Saunders College Publishing, 1999, p139)

 

 

 

 

******************************

 

 

 

 

“17.2 Spontaneous Change

We know from experience that some processes occur by themselves, without requiring us to do anything. The ice melts as a glass of iced tea stands at room temperature. An iron nail rusts when exposed to oxygen and water vapor of moist air. A violent reaction occurs when sodium metal and chlorine gas come in contact.

 

 

 

2 Na(s) + CL2(g) -> 2 NaCl(s)

 

 

 

These are all examples of spontaneous processes. A spontaneous process is one that can occur in a system left to itself; no action from outside the system is necessary to bring it about.

 

 

 

 

…

 

 

 

The term spontaneous signifies nothing about how fast a process occurs. The reaction between sodium and chlorine is extremely fast; the rusting of iron is much slower. If we mix H2 and O2 gases at room temperature, we see no evidence of a chemical reaction. Yet, thermodynamic criteria indicate that this reaction is indeed spontaneous.” (General Chemistry: An Integrated Approach, John W Hill & Ralph H Petrucci, Prentice Hall, 1999, p732-733)

 

 

 

**********************************

[Tormod]

That's all you can do, isn't it? Use words "like scientists", and claim that others "misuse" them. Who gave you a monopoly on semantics?

 

Yes, it is a science *forum*, not a soapbox. Sorry, mate.

 

Tormod

[Uncle Martin]

Due to newly acquired evidence I retract the statement originally contained in this post.

[Tormod]

Let's backtrack a bit. This is a long post, and possibly the last I make in this thread unless TeleMad actually manages to reply to this with a smatter of intelligence and courtesy.

 

Originally posted by: TeleMad

Tormod: Yes. But according the the big bang theory, our existence is a direct result of the big bang…

 

No…you are still misusing the terms big bang and big bang theory. The big bang theory is a theory of origin of the universe.…not of life. Big bang theory attempts to describe how our Universe came into being, not how humans came to exist. And the big bang itself was an event that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and is restricted to the very earliest moments of our Universe’s existence. We weren’t here – neither were plants or bacteria - neither was the Earth – neither weres carbon, oxygen, nitrogen.

 

PS: You again appear to be doing exactly what I asked about earlier – misusing the term big bang as some overarching, naturalistic philosophical position. That’s not what it is.

 

I have read through this topic many times now. I fail to see how any of us can have given you the impression that we think anything but space and energy was created during the big bang. You put in those silly statements that nothing else was created. You drive this point through even though none of us has suggested otherwise. That is what I mean when I criticise your method of argumentation.

 

I think the big bang theory is quite good, yes. It was the birth of our universe and - from that - everything has formed ove billions of years.

 

Now. Show me how that is a *misuse* of the term "Big Bang". Especially, show me how this makes me appear to use it in some overarching, naturalistic philosophical position. (And try to do it without a textbook in hand, if you are able to).

 

Tormod: … so within that framework it is indeed a fact until proven false.

 

That “fact” (as you call it) is not based on empirical evidence but rather only on a philosophical position – naturalism (methodological or otherwise). At this point in time, it cannot be shown to be correct by science.

 

Whereas the statement that "the big bang itself was an event that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago" is *based* on empirical evidence and can be shown to be correct by science - and how it is not *only* a philosophical position? Show us how. I *know* the theories, I have read a lot of the evidence - I want to hear *your* opinion on this, not a textbook explanation (I can read).

 

Tormod: You have attributed to me a "misuse of the term big bang" (for reasons I have yet to understand).

 

Then please read what I have written, because I have explained the problem.

 

No, you have not explained the problem. You have brought up a lot of assumptions about what I think the "term" big bang implies. There is a big difference.

 

Tormod: Yet I have not once in this discussion said that "I believe this" or "I think so". I am presenting aspects of the mainstream big bang theory, which you seem to agree to.

 

I do agree with the mainstream Big Bang theory, but that’s not what you are presenting…you keep going way past what the big bang theory itself holds.

 

All I can read out of this discussion is that *you* claim I present the big bang in this or that way.

 

Tormod: However, you seem to have an issue with the origin of life. You are using classical debate tecnique to make us admit that scientists cannot produce life which forms spontaneously, by 1) making it seem we make false assumptions

 

You ARE ma

[TeleMad]

Tormod: That's all you can do, isn't it? Use words "like scientists", and claim that others "misuse" them. Who gave you a monopoly on semantics?

 

Uhm, I was the one who used the term spontaneous - first post on page 2 - so gee, I guess I get to say exactly what I meant when I used it, not you guys. Kind of makes sense, now doesn't it.

 

 

 

So that's two reasons you guys are wrong on this and two reasons why I am correct.

[Freethinker]

Ping pong

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

Tormod: That's all you can do, isn't it? Use words "like scientists", and claim that others "misuse" them. Who gave you a monopoly on semantics?

 

Uhm, I was the one who used the term spontaneous - first post on page 2 - so gee, I guess I get to say exactly what I meant when I used it, not you guys. Kind of makes sense, now doesn't it.

 

So that's two reasons you guys are wrong on this and two reasons why I am correct.

 

Stop this childish bickering and answer my post above, or be gone.

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Uncle Martin, I had felt like you to an extent in trying to open a dialog to clear what I felt were symantic and process differences. I even gave some specific examples. But those examples were attacked and the "proofs" then supplied in fact contradict his claims. So I still find him to only want to argue regardless of what the point is. Note that the "lack of open dialog" referenced as being from all participants. That I was just establisheing how I saw each person using the word.

 

Originally posted by: TeleMad

FreeThinker: The same lack of open dialog is found in the discussion of "spontaneous". Like Tormod and Unc, I would assign the concept of "instantaneous" to "spontaneous", which is in fact part of the def given by WWWebster "2 : arising from a momentary impulse". While Telemad wants to use "spontaneous" strictly as "6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated "

 

'TeleMad' uses the term as scientists do...

Going 3rd person, isn't that clever?

look in a chemistry text, or a physics text, or a biology text. This is supposed to be a science forum, isn't it?

Funny, I didn't know that scientists didn't use Webster.

 

But let's look at your SCEINCE BOOK examples.

Came back to post a couple…

Thanks for being so gracious and altruistic!

 

“An exergonic reaction releases energy and is said to be a spontaneous or “downhill” reaction. The term spontaneous may give a false impression that such reactions are always instantaneous.

OK< if they are not ALWAYS instantaneous, then SOMETIME they ARE Instantaneous. Thus for you to continue to argue that they are NOT EVER Instantaneous is to go against your own proof.

“17.2 Spontaneous Change

...A violent reaction occurs when sodium metal and chlorine gas come in contact.

Again, a process that happens the INSTANT they come in contact.

 

Thanks again for proof of INSTANTANEOUS spontaneous process.

These are all examples of spontaneous processes. A spontaneous process is one that can occur in a system left to itself; no action from outside the system is necessary to bring it about.

OK, so the sodium metal and the chlorine gas were "in a system left to itself"? Explain how they had already been in contact the whole time but did not react unbtil later, when they then had a "violent reaction".

 

Or would it be completely obvious that this did NOT represent a "in a system left to itself"? Even if it WAS "Spontaneous", based on the definitions from "a chemistry text, or a physics text, or a biology text. This is supposed to be a science forum, isn't it?"

 

If you are going to be SO MAGNANOMOUS that you "Came back to post a couple…". Make sure they are in your favor.