Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How does life start?


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#52 lindagarrette

lindagarrette

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 07:36 PM

Back to basics: Somthing I particularly like(d) about this forum and the scientific nature of the site in general is that the discussions are based on valid hypotheses. There are other groups on the web where people argue opinions repetitively. It would be fine with me if the moderator canned some of the junk commentary. How about it?

#53 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 07:44 PM

Originally posted by: TeleMad
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.

Ya, I guess your right. I can see that there are two ways a peron can enter into a discussion. Someone intersted in an open, intellectually honest discussion would intentionally use words in the manner that they are best understood. In a manner intended to provide the most complete and accurate exchange of information.

You choose to toss out words which you now admit you might choose to assign any arbitrary meaning you wish. And then wait until such time that you have stopped that word from having a recognized symbolic represenation, to then announce that you reserve the right to change it's meaning at any future time.

Interesting approach.

#54 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 07:45 PM

Originally posted by: lindagarrette
Back to basics: Somthing I particularly like(d) about this forum and the scientific nature of the site in general is that the discussions are based on valid hypotheses. There are other groups on the web where people argue opinions repetitively. It would be fine with me if the moderator canned some of the junk commentary. How about it?


Oh oh, I'm in trouble,


Sorry... :-)

#55 Tim_Lou

Tim_Lou

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 918 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 07:47 PM

oh, guys come on.

this topic is getting nowhere. (no-where, not now-here...lol)
plz start some real discussions.

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

a spontaneous change in chemistry means that the reaction is favorable and it would happen in standard tempature and pressure. 1atm 25C.

arh~ damn, im one of those arguing guys.

#56 Uncle Martin

Uncle Martin

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 07:58 PM

[quote]
Originally posted by: TeleMad
[


[quote]
Tormod: ... that we willfully mangle your posts..[/quote]

"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."

When you start a post with hyperbole, i.e. "Virtually nothing in our universe was created in the big bang", then go on to tell us what you really mean, it is quite difficult to follow you. I did leave out "as far as matter" in one quote, BUT that did not effect the outcome of our disagreement. You've given ME no "undeniable evidence". I deny it completely. Your responses are inappropriate. Although I previously stated that I would not waste any more of my time on you, I will continue to refute any claims you make against me.

So, once again...... PLEASE think before you type!!!!!

#57 Uncle Martin

Uncle Martin

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 08:04 PM

[quote]
Originally posted by: 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.'

Yes, but it has become all too apparent that we need to learn the definition of futility and TeleMad needs to learn some humility.

#58 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 08:51 PM

Tormod: Freethinker wrote that since the big bang was the origin of everything in the unvierse, we must therefore be here because of the big bang.



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


TeleMad: Which is only an assumption based on the philosophical position of naturalism. Have you or FreeThinker literally disproven the existence of all possible> Gods? Don’t think so…no one has. So how can you insist that there actually is nothing beyond our current understanding of nature? You can't, except on personal beliefs.


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

Tormod: In fact, I have never insisted there is nothing beyond our current understanding of nature.


You have implicitly stated there is no God (as in a supernatural being that performs miracles). Let me explain.



Look at your statement again to which I replied. Note that it is not only a conclusion (“therefore…”), but one that is claimed to necessarily follow from the premises (note the “must” part in particular). Let’s start by looking just at the premise.

Tormod: … the big bang was the origin of everything in the universe…


Was it? Even if we assume for a moment that there is/was a God out there performing miracles – doing things that aren’t constrained by the laws of nature? No. Under that assumption one simply cannot state that everything in the universe actually was formed because of the big bang. A God could have created anything at any time under any conditions. It’s the miracle wildcard: not being constrained by the laws of nature allows a God to do anything He wants to, even if the physics and chemistry don’t allow it. So your premise IMPLICITLY RELIES upon there being no such God.



To be a bit more specific, with a God, it is possible that the big bang in fact did not produce conditions capable of originating life…perhaps this hypothetical God used the big bang just to produce conditions that would be compatible with life’s existence, not its arising, and He created life separately as a miracle. Your premise is not compatible with such a possibility. So, again, your premise alone IMPLICITLY RELIES upon there being no such God.



Now, for an argument’s conclusion to be able to be trusted, all of its premises must be true. And as we saw above, for your premise to be true, there can’t be a God performing miracles. Thus, your premise, your conclusion, and therefore your whole argument IMPLICITLY RELIES upon there being no such God.




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


PS: Well great. After I already wrote all of the above it dawned on me that this too could be the result of another misunderstanding, based on your being overly loose with your language again. Going back to your original statement along these lines, I am sorry, but it is simply WRONG to say that everything was created in the big bang. My computer was not created in the big bang...my television was not created in the big bang...humans, plants, and bacteria were not created in the big bang…the Earth was not created in the big bang...mountains and oceans were not created in the big bang...carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur were not created in the big bang. You’ve changed your phrasing a bit this time, switching from saying everything was created in the big bang to saying that the big bang is the origin of everything. This is an improvement, but the validity of even the new version is highly debatable. At least from my point of view (and I would imagine many others), the big bang was not the origin of my computer, my sons, or my car…just the simplest fundamental particles they were made from. No, the origin of my computer, sons, and car occurred billions of years later and under vastly different conditions.

#59 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 09:08 PM

FreeThinker: No one else can be right unless they can prove their point 100%. Telemad is above accepting anything that is not 100%.


Please don't speak for me...you got it wrong.



You want one prime example? Sure thing. I accept that all extant life is descended from a common ancestor by means of undirected evolution. Did anyone prove this 100%? Nope.



Are you not familiar with what it means to be a skeptic?

#60 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 09:18 PM

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


“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."


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


FreeThinker: 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.


Please don't stuff more words into my mouth. Nowhere did I state - or even imply - that spontaneous processes are NOT EVER instantaneous. In fact, I stated that it’s not tied to time at all. Here, look again…

Telemad: But in the scientific context I was using, the term spontaneous does not mean instantaneous – in fact, it’s not tied to time at all. A spontaneous process can span seconds, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, or any arbitrary length of time.







A spontaneous formation of life does not mean that life was poofed into existence fully formed all at once, whether by nature or by a God; it means that the process would have occurred on its own, according the (unguided) laws of physics and chemistry, without any external influences directing the process.


In case you still don’t get it, let me explain….you didn't countered me in the least.

#61 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 09:48 PM

TeleMad : 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.

FreeThinker: Ya, I guess your right. I can see that there are two ways a peron can enter into a discussion. Someone intersted in an open, intellectually honest discussion would intentionally use words in the manner that they are best understood.


Which I did for a science discussion. I used the term spontaneous appropriately, as my quotes from college chemistry and biology texts confirmed.

FreeThinker: In a manner intended to provide the most complete and accurate exchange of information.

Which I did for a science forum, as my quotes from college chemistry and biology texts confirmed.

FreeThinker: You choose to toss out words which you now admit you might choose to assign any arbitrary meaning you wish.


Huh? Do you have any idea what you are saying?

FreeThinker: And then wait until such time that you have stopped that word from having a recognized symbolic represenation, to then announce that you reserve the right to change it's meaning at any future time.


Your, uhm, “stuff”, is getting pretty deep FreeThinker. Here, let’s discard your rubbish and review the facts.



1) I used the term spontaneous correctly for a science discussion, as confirmed by the college chemistry and biology texts I quoted.



2) “You guys” – apparently oblivious to the fact that such a meaning even existed – misinterpreted my perfectly correct statements.



So, who made the error? “You guys”.



Now, EVEN IF both meanings were equally applicable and known about by all, who would be at fault for a misunderstanding? “You guys” again. I was the one who used the term spontaneous and so it would be I and I alone who would have the authority to state exactly which of the two equally applicable and equally valid meanings it would have had: you guys wouldn’t.



Two reasons "you guys" are to blame for the misunderstanding...no reasons to blame me. It's really quite simple.





I have a question? Why won't "you guys" just let this matter die off? You know I didn't do anything wrong and that any misunderstanding is "your" fault..so why do any of you even keep the "discussion" about it alive? Why not drop it and move on to something else? Just curious...seems you guys have some kind of "agenda".

#62 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 07 June 2004 - 11:40 PM

I am finished with this insane thread.

TeleMad, we all lose this one because of your inability to look beyond your dictionary and accept that in a science forum, yes, sometimes people choose terms which might be off. Better to point that out - in a helpful way - than to crash the party and geth eat from everyone.

To everyone else: Stop posting here. I will close this thread later.

Tormod

#63 TeleMad

TeleMad

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1249 posts

Posted 08 June 2004 - 06:23 AM

TeleMad:



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


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


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




TeleMad: 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."


Uncle Martin: When you start a post with hyperbole, i.e. "Virtually nothing in our universe was created in the big bang", then go on to tell us what you really mean, it is quite difficult to follow you.


Wrong! Any honest and intelligent person could EASILY understand what I was saying. So why couldn't you?




Tell us Uncle Martin, do you have any idea what starting a sentence with “For example…” indicates? Gee, could it indicate that what follows helps explain the preceding sentence? Could it serve to explicitly tie the following and preceding sentences together into a logical unit? Yep. Here, look again at what I actually said.



TeleMad: Virtually nothing in our universe was created in the big bang. For example, neither carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, nor sulfur were created in the big bang: these are 5 of the 6 main biological elements, needed for there to be life. Not only were no animals, plants, or bacteria created in the big bang, but neither were planets, mountains, oceans, rocks, and so on.


See how the sentences that follow help explain that paragraph-opening sentence. See how any honest and intelligent person coudl easily understand what I was saying?



I accept absolutely no blame whatsoever for your inability to understand what I said - all the fault for any misunderstanding lies on you.

#64 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 08 June 2004 - 08:01 AM

I quote Freethinker: Ping Pong.

Thread closed.