Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
    Looks to me like all you've got are more seeds. Any changes that took place can be explained by genetics. You can't extrapolate this to show that life can arise on its own from inorganic matter.
    The example of the seed forming a plant and then producing more and changed seeds, was just an example of how in such an example it can be understood that development occurs.

    I just showed that, while we arive with what we started with, we did not proceed in a circle but in a spiral. Which means: slight and gradual chances took place.

    The example was an example from living organisms.
    But the same type of developing process occurs within anorganic matter too, namely that quantitative and qualitative changes occur.

    Some time after the Big Bang and before there were galaxies and stars, the universe consisted mainly in the form of hydrogen.
    There was no way for chemical evolution to start from that situation.
    But matter itself formed clouds of hydrogen and some other light elements into stars and these stars formed galaxy systems, which transformed the hydrogen into heavier elements.
    These heavier elements were exposed into the universe again, after the star collapses. After some generations of stars, also the sun formed with the other planets of the solar system.
    The conditions on earth made it possible for chemical evolution, so that all sorts of chemical molecules could form.

    All this just explains that changes in matter DO lead to not only quantitative chaces, but also qualitative chances, namely: the higher elements, and complex chemical bindings between atoms, forming complex anorganic and organic molecules.

    What just means that all those quantitative and qualitative changes do not have a limit. You can not just turn your head away and state that chemical evolution is limited to form only form new chemicals, and life could never emerge from that.

    That would be the same as stating that clouds of hydrogen gasses could only form new clouds of hydrogen gasses but never could form new elements, let alone complex chemical bindings and complex anorganic and organic molecules.

    Well they did.

    You just place an arbitrary point, that where chemical evolution goes over into biological evolution, which by the way should not be conceived of as a single and unique transformation happening all at once, but in slow and gradual steps (there could have been hundreds of millions of years in which the chemical evolution transformed into biological evolution, the a-biogenesis phase).

    Why would there be such a limit imposed on development, that chemical evolution could not walk over into biological evolution?

    Why is it possible that simple hydrogen and other light elements transform in billions of years into complex anorganic and organic molecules, and why would it not be possible that this evolution went further forming proto-life and ultimately life forms?

    What is the principle objection there? And why exactly there?

    What is it that makes the birth of the first (proto-)life form so much more incredible then the
    - birth of the first hydrogen atoms
    - birth of the first star and galaxies
    - birth of the sun, earth and solar system
    - birth of complex anorganic and organic molecules
    - your birth
    Last edited by attention; August 9, 2003, 08:24 PM.

    Comment


    • take note.. he only agrees that if you came to him you would reach him. that is it!
      I like mustard.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by D the Atheist
        Thank you for agreeing with me. It took some though.
        What am I agreeing with you about?

        Comment


        • That the mathematics used in the proof of god may not reflect reality.
          David the Atheist

          “To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true.”

          Bertrand Russell

          Comment


          • Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
            What am I agreeing with you about?
            AD thinks that by you saying that he would eventually reach you, you are aggreeing with what ever you stated earlier that you disagreed with.
            Last edited by CapnFungi; August 9, 2003, 08:13 PM.
            I like mustard.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by attention
              That would be the same as stating that clouds of hydrogen gasses could only form new clouds of hydrogen gases but never could form new elements.

              Well they did.
              Only if they bunch up enough for fusion to take place.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by D the Atheist
                That the mathematics used in the proof of god may not reflect reality.
                I never said God could be mathematically proven.

                Comment


                • Origins of life...god...whatever. We all know what we are talking about now, don't we!
                  David the Atheist

                  “To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true.”

                  Bertrand Russell

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by D the Atheist
                    Origins of life...god...whatever. We all know what we are talking about now, don't we!
                    I don't think you do...

                    Comment


                    • I think i'm lost now! LoL
                      I like mustard.

                      Comment


                      • This min-discussion started by my comments on Bob’s appraisal of the beach on the sand argument. It was brought about by Bob’s insistence that life could not form because of the odds against it mathematically. I have shown that I can not reach you mathematically either. Why is one wrong and the other not?

                        This part of the globe has time restrictions on Internet usage (Four hour lots) and mine is about to expire. May look in later…but then again…I may not.
                        David the Atheist

                        “To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true.”

                        Bertrand Russell

                        Comment


                        • To be honest Dave, I don't think you have a head for math. I linked to a page that showed the mathematical flaw in Zeno's paradox. Did you even read it?

                          Comment


                          • OEJ, yes I do know of it and that it is obviously wrong. It is wrong in an equal amount to Bob’s mathematical proclamation that life could not have started because of the massive improbability (In his mind).

                            Without knowing the mathematical chances for life, how can one state the mathematical chances against it, except by fabulous invention? Bob’s mathematics are as suspect as Zeno’s paradox.

                            Life did start. This we know. It may be one in a billion to the nth chances that it did. But like a lottery, the first try may have worked or it may even be inevitable.

                            That it depended on mathematical probabilities or common chemical/energy interaction or something else is not at all clear and it is misrepresenting the unknown to state anything different.

                            Do you understand this?

                            I really must be of back into the real world.
                            David the Atheist

                            “To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true.”

                            Bertrand Russell

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by D the Atheist
                              OEJ, yes I do know of it and that it is obviously wrong.
                              Then why did you bring up something you knew to be mathematically flawed as a mathematical example? That's pretty dishonest, don't you think? I don't think you did know about the flaw, and you're just backpedalling to save face.

                              It is wrong in an equal amount to Bob’s mathematical proclamation that life could not have started because of the massive improbability (In his mind).

                              Without knowing the mathematical chances for life, how can one state the mathematical chances against it, except by fabulous invention? Bob’s mathematics are as suspect as Zeno’s paradox.
                              Zeno's paradox isn't mathematically suspect -- it's blatantly flawed. Bob, on the other hand, used to be a computer programmer -- it's a safe bet that he knows his math.

                              Life did start. This we know.
                              That doesn't mean it came about by natural means.

                              It may be one in a billion to the nth chances that it did. But like a lottery, the first try may have worked or it may even be inevitable.
                              In a lottery, some number is always going to be picked, but that number is going to be decidedly random. And there is nothing to show that life coming about may be inevitable -- this is merely wishful thinking on the part of the atheist.

                              That it depended on mathematical probabilities or common chemical/energy interaction or something else is not at all clear and it is misrepresenting the unknown to state anything different.
                              We're not saying life came about through the unknown. We're telling you God made it. You just don't like how it's been shown that the way atheists think it happened is so mathematically improbable as to be impossible.

                              Comment


                              • Then why did you bring up something you knew to be mathematically flawed as a mathematical example? That's pretty dishonest, don't you think? I don't think you did know about the flaw, and you're just backpedalling to save face.
                                Yes…you are correct. I really did not think that I could reach you in a physical sense????????

                                Zeno's paradox isn't mathematically suspect -- it's blatantly flawed. Bob, on the other hand, used to be a computer programmer -- it's a safe bet that he knows his math.
                                This is a call to someone’s expertise. It is not a formula for getting at a correct statement.

                                That doesn't mean it came about by natural means.
                                And it certainly doesn’t mean that it didn’t.

                                In a lottery, some number is always going to be picked, but that number is going to be decidedly random. And there is nothing to show that life coming about may be inevitable -- this is merely wishful thinking on the part of the atheist.
                                That we are here shows opposite. It seems we are inevitable.

                                We're not saying life came about through the unknown. We're telling you God made it. You just don't like how it's been shown that the way atheists think it happened is so mathematically improbable as to be impossible.
                                Improbable is not the same as impossible….I say again….and again.
                                David the Atheist

                                “To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true.”

                                Bertrand Russell

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X