Oh, you are on a whole new level of stupid tonight my friend. I was making a point you nonce, something you always fail to get. But because you always have trouble finding this I'll spell it out. I was trying to have him understand that he should practice what he preaches. My beef was that he was using insults and mud slinging whilst in discussion, i saved it till i was out of the discussion.I'm over it now anyway.
again, resorting to insults are we? You all did. thus setting the standard, he just followed it.Maybe you could follow your own advice as well.
You're as thick as planks my son.I'm not in discussion with you, i'm not trying to debate any type of topic with you nor am i trying to present anything. I am simply, off the cuff just calling you stupid because you chimed in AFTER the discussion had ended.And to set it straight, i, NOT ONCE, resorted to cheap insults whilst in discussion with psyche.
Fuck it, I'm over it. I thought i could get through to you. You're an impenetrable force field that runs off ignorance and stupidity.I'm expecting a trailer load of infractions and probably a stint in the cooler.
Grim, would you care to ream Christian Schienche 101 here on his hilarious ideas about radiocarbon dating? I'm guessing that's up probably one of your alleys.
Arnifix is the one to blame as he incited it with the 'idiot' remarks.
I say that you are mentally deficient. You say that I have orange hair and am a homosexual. Even my insults are more intelligent than yours.Please note, if you try to use science to prove that god is the most likely option, your throat will be full of me, because I will be jumping straight down your liehole. If I lie, misrepresent, or deliberately decieve you, you can do the same to me.
So no, it is not at all similar to Earth, and the chance of life developing in that kind of habitat is extremely low if not negligible.
Let's say that we did discover life on another planet sometime in the future, what type of life do you think it would be? Do you think it would be a sentient, conscious lifeform capable of awareness and cognitive thought? Or would it just be some kind of basic organism? Would they develop emotions like humans have? What exactly are emotions? Are they just an aspect of evolution, or is there something more to it?
Even if they did find some basic living organism on another planet, I don't think that would disprove God, I'm sure there would be some purpose for those organisms to be there.
The problem I see with constantly citing scientific research and other 'discoveries' is that, how do you know your source is credible?
There are some scientists who vehemently claim to know the precise age of the Earth, through the study of rocks and other minerals. The problem is their methods of examination aren't necessarily 100% accurate - the tools they use for 'dating' are flawed, and cannot predict the age of something past a certain amount of time, despite their claims that they can merely because it fits in with their explanation of evolution.
So I am inclined to not always take every bit of information I read on the internet or elsewhere at face value, and I am happy that I have the ability to think for myself and develop my own ideas rather than relying constantly on everything someone else says.
If I am discussing something based on something I have read I don't feel the need to always cite my source of information unless I deem it necessary, why should I?
No matter how far into the future we predict, do you honestly think science will ever be able to explain the existence of the universe, of life, and reality?
I think it's adequate for an insult to be met with an insult in response
whereas someone like Ngati can actually participate in the discussion and respond to arguments in a generally decent and intelligent manner rather than resorting to useless remarks that serve no purpose to the discussion whatsoever.
We have only pointed you out for this, and i believe it's only been me and Arnifix who have pulled you up on it
I was going to suggest this earlier, that this topic could really do with it's own subforum. It's far too broad of a subject to constrain within one massive thread, and it gets a bit confusing discussing multiple different subjects at the same time.
I am just going to ignore you from now on anyway since you never have anything decent or intelligible to contribute.
No one has, all it has been about is a childish debate of "i am right, your wrong"
I was making a point you nonce
We believe what we see then we believe our interpretation of it. We dont even know we are making an interpretation most of the time.
That is, of course, only if we are basing our understanding of Life on our knowledge of carbon-based life forms. There may well be other, alien life forms that are unrecognisable, or live outside the habitable zone for carbon-based life.
It's difficult to say. Again, this is based on our perception of Life, yet there...oh, see my reply above.
It wouldn't prove god, either. All it would prove is that Life exists elsewhere in the Multiverse. There doesn't need to be a purpose. chance is a good enough reason for existence. It is for us!
Generally speaking, peer-reviewed Scientific research is credible. Knee-jerk, revisionist research with an agenda to derail the Scientific approach is NOT credible.Yes, Scientists sometimes make mistakes, but they admit them , or carry out more research to find out the cause of the mistake. (This is the basic reply, but it is a good idea to have an understanding of the scientific approach, and the nomenclature/ terminology, especially about terms such as 'Theory'.
Good to hear, still waiting to see it though.
Intellectual property rights?Credibility?Plagiarism?
Quite possibly. It is the best resource we have for understanding these matters. I can't wait for the results from the Large Hadron Collider, but I know I'm going to have to wait for a long time before they arrive, and I might not even be around. This longitudinal study approach, however, shouldn't stop the inquiry, just because it takes longer than a human lifetime.
I dunno, there is a bit of merit here, but I don't think it would get any better. I, for one, am enjoying this :rnr:
Dangerous. Ignorance is bliss, and too easy. I would much rather read all the shit along with the gold, as it helps me make up my mind.
Nice quote. Science is interpretation based on the available facts at the time, and is constantly self-regulating, updating and revising.Religion is interpretation based on no facts and is constantly self-agrandising, obfuscating and revisionary.
you need to read some books and not get all your answers from wikipedia :disappoin
Thank you for that extensive post Ngati. I'd given up yelling at the wall.
Carbon is great molecular glue—there’s no doubt about it. Just add water and you’ve got life. Well, maybe it’s not quite that simple, but carbon and water do seem to be a winning combo, at least on planet Earth. That may be why we’ve been limiting ourselves in our search for . The carbon/water combo has worked so well for our own conditions, that we simply can’t imagine anything else supporting life. Currently, our search for extra-terrestrial life forms has been focused on planets similar to ours. The perplexing idea exists, however, that what would be death to us on Earth, may be life to other beings. What we’re looking for may not lie in our version of the “sweet spot”.It is definitely worth considering that other options do exist besides water and carbon. Alternative biochemists speculate that there are several atoms and solvents that could potentially spawn life. It is also worth considering that because humans are carbon-based beings, who do their lab work under conditions on planet Earth, we may be a bit biased towards carbon thinking. Not everyone is a “carbon chauvinist”, however. So far, scientists have already hypothesized several interesting alternatives to carbon. Various elements become more stable and capable of forming complex molecules when under strange (from a human perspective) thermal and atmospheric conditions. For example, silicone-based chemicals would be more stable than equivalent hydrocarbons in a sulphuric-acid-rich setting, which has been noted in some extraterrestrial environments. Even counter-intuitive elements such as arsenic may be capable of supporting life under the right conditions. Even on Earth some marine algae incorporate arsenic into complex organic molecules such as arsenosugars and arsenobetaines. Several other small life forms use arsenic to generate energy and facilitate growth. Chlorine and sulfur are also possible elemental replacements for carbon. Sulfur is capably of forming long-chain molecules like carbon. Some terrestrial bacteria have already been discovered to survive on sulfur rather than oxygen, by reducing sulfur to hydrogen sulfide. Nitrogen and phosphorus could also potentially form biochemical molecules. Phosphorus is similar to carbon in that it can form long chain molecules on its own, which would conceivably allow for formation of complex macromolecules. When combined with nitrogen, it can create quite a wide range of molecules, including rings.So what about water? Isn’t at least water essential to life? Not necessarily. Ammonia, for example, has many of the same properties as water. An ammonia or ammonia-water mixture, stays liquid at much colder temperatures than plain water. Such biochemistries may exist outside the conventional water-based "habitability zone". One exciting example of such a location would be Saturn's largest moon Titan.Hydrogen fluoride methanol, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride, and formamide have all been suggested as suitable solvents that could theoretically support alternative biochemistry. All of these “water replacements” have pros and cons when considered in our terrestrial environment. What needs to be considered is that with a radically different environment, comes radically different reactions. Water and carbon might be the very last things capable of supporting life in some extreme planetary conditions. In any case, it is not beyond the realm of feasibility that our first encounter with extra-terrestrial life will not be a solely carbon-based occasion.
I cant wait for the Romulans to recieve my telepathic signals and save me from this moronic cesspit called 'Earth'. Then I'll finally have one of the tools necessary to render the existence of God moot
The problem of the early evolution of life and the unfounded optimism of scientists was well put by Dawkins. He concluded that Earth’s chemistry was different on our early, lifeless, planet, and that at this time there existed ...no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earth’s chemistry were very different. Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator. This may seem like a big stroke of luck... Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen... [and] it had to happen only once... What is more, as far as we know, it may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe. Of course many people think that it actually happened on lots and lots of planets, but we only have evidence that it happened on one planet, after a lapse of half a billion to a billion years. So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 282–283, emphasis in original).
The first step in evolution was the development of simple self-copying molecules consisting of carbon dioxide, water and other inorganic compounds. No one has proven that a simple self-copying molecule can self-generate a compound such as DNA. Nor has anyone been able to create one in a laboratory or even on paper. The hypothetical weak “primeval soup” was not like soups experienced by humans but was highly diluted, likely close to pure water. The process is described as life having originated spontaneously from organic compounds in the oceans of the primitive Earth. The proposal assumes that primitive oceans contained large quantities of simple organic compounds that reacted to form structures of greater and greater complexity, until there arose a structure that we would call living. In other words, the first living organism developed by means of a series of nonbiological steps, none of which would be highly improbably on the basis of what is know today. This theory, [was] first set forth clearly by A.I. Oparin (1938) ... (Newman, 1967, p. 662). An astounding number of speculations, models, theories and controversies still surround every aspect of the origin of life problem (Lahav 1999). Although some early scientists proposed that “organic life ... is eternal,” most realized it must have come “into existence at a certain period in the past” (Haeckel, 1905, p. 339). It now is acknowledged that the first living organism could not have arisen directly from inorganic matter (water, carbon dioxide, and other inorganic nutrients) even as a result of some extraordinary event. Before the explosive growth of our knowledge of the cell during the last 30 years, it was known that “the simplest bacteria are extremely complex, and the chances of their arising directly from inorganic materials, with no steps in between, are too remote to consider seriously.” (Newman, 1967, p. 662). Most major discoveries about cell biology and molecular biology have been made since then.
Darwin evidentially recognized how serious the abiogenesis problem was for his theory, and once even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life form that was called into life “by the Creator” (1900, p. 316). But to admit, as Darwin did, the possibility of one or a few creations is to open the door to the possibility of many or even thousands! If God made one animal type, He also could have made two or many thousands of different types. No contemporary hypothesis today has provided a viable explanation as to how the abiogenesis origin of life could occur by naturalistic means. The problems are so serious that the majority of evolutionists today tend to shun the whole subject of abiogenesis.
Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals
The first step in evolution was the development of simple self-copying molecules consisting of carbon dioxide, water and other inorganic compounds. No one has proven that a simple self-copying molecule can self-generate a compound such as DNA. Nor has anyone been able to create one in a laboratory or even on paper. The hypothetical weak “primeval soup” was not like soups experienced by humans but was highly diluted, likely close to pure water. The process is described as life having originated spontaneously from organic compounds in the oceans of the primitive Earth. The proposal assumes that primitive oceans contained large quantities of simple organic compounds that reacted to form structures of greater and greater complexity, until there arose a structure that we would call living. In other words, the first living organism developed by means of a series of nonbiological steps, none of which would be highly improbably on the basis of what is know today. This theory, [was] first set forth clearly by A.I. Oparin (1938) ... (Newman, 1967, p. 662). An astounding number of speculations, models, theories and controversies still surround every aspect of the origin of life problem (Lahav 1999). Although some early scientists proposed that “organic life ... is eternal,” most realized it must have come “into existence at a certain period in the past” (Haeckel, 1905, p. 339). It now is acknowledged that the first living organism could not have arisen directly from inorganic matter (water, carbon dioxide, and other inorganic nutrients) even as a result of some extraordinary event. Before the explosive growth of our knowledge of the cell during the last 30 years, it was known that “the simplest bacteria are extremely complex, and the chances of their arising directly from inorganic materials, with no steps in between, are too remote to consider seriously.” (Newman, 1967, p. 662).
I'm curious, you say you know of a few scientists who are also religious. Do you know any personally, in your field of work? If you do - what's your view on that? Do you think people can logically believe in God and respect science aswell? If not, why?
