Freethinker Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Originally posted by: TormodThat our existence follows as the results of the big bang would be natural, since everything in the universe as we know it was created in the big bang (again, according to the mainstream big bang theory). Freethinker can talk for himself but I see no reason to wonder why a request like "Please explain the details" did not get an answer. Maybe you should try to be more specific - what details are you looking for?Thanks for filling in for me on your site Tormod! lol I had not even seen Telemad's post on this thread. Those that know me here, know I NEVER back away from request for specific details. But my reply woould probably be somehting like yours as who knows how much detail he is ignorant of and needs to be filled in with. Just as a matter of discussion, as I said, I had not seen Telemad's post here. I have been on many threads here. I used to track each one and make sure I replied to any post submitted. But I found that I was monopolizing the site. I had the last post in every thread. So I started to only post on which ever threads were listed on the home page. And that list changes continually. But to keep Telemad from having any serious complications from my not replying personally, it is to follow. Quote
Freethinker Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 And now I have read all of the posts. One of the reasons I changed my posting habits is that I was taking over the site. I was active on every thread and usually interlaced after every other's post. I might have been interferring with other's posting their ideas. I see how well Tormod and Uncy are doing. I would be merely redundant for me to repeat it. But I will clarify my statement, since this seems to be such a personal concern for you Telemad.But FreeThinker didn’t offer his original statement - about our existence being a natural occurence of the laws of physics - as a mere belief, but as a fact. However, scientific experimentation has not confirmed that belief yet – it’s still an assumption, whether it is correct or not.FACT, We are here. (Unless we wish to digress into a reductio ad absurdum) Now assuming we were not here before the BB. Very safe assumption. And based on the our currently favored understanding of the BB, as so very well presented by Tormod and Uncle Martin, as the source of the particles that we are made of, our existence follows logically from the BB. The only other possibility is for life to have come from a source outside of the BB. That of course would require proof of the existence of this outside existence. So either we are the logical outcome of the BB, or you can prove that some other extra-physical source exists. I'm betting on the first, but am open to your proof for the 2nd. Well? Quote
Tormod Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMad TorMod: But - do you know what "life" is? In the context of the origin of life, it is any self-sustaining molecule or system of molecules capable of replicating and evolving. Exactly. So life did not arise spontaneously. It needed many building blocks before it could start to evolve. That is where I think you are driving down a blind alley. TorMod: You wrote that "the ability of the laws of physics to produce life spontaneously has never been demonstrated by science". … However, I am not sure anyone has tried to formulate any theory of "spontaneous production of life". That’s what the study of the origin of life is all about. Again, no. The study of the origin of life is varied, like any other field. Some want to find proof that life was created by a god. Some want to show that it happened by pure conicidence, and that it can only have happened on Earth. Some want to show that it could have happened almost anywhere. The only ones (as far as I know) who claim that life arose spontaneously are creationists in one form or another. Otherwise life would need to evolve from pre-life, ie non-living organic compounds. Where the line goes between not-life and life is, however, one of the important things that all of these people study. TorMod: It is generally believed (by non-creationists, mind) that life arose from prebiotic structures which had the ability to reproduce. Right, **generally believed**. But FreeThinker didn’t offer his original statement - about our existence being a natural occurence of the laws of physics - as a mere belief, but as a fact. However, scientific experimentation has not confirmed that belief yet – it’s still an assumption, whether it is correct or not. Yes. But according the the big bang theory, our existence is a direct result of the big bang, so within that framework it is indeed a fact until proven false. You have attributed to me a "misuse of the term big bang" (for reasons I have yet to understand). 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. 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 and 2) showing that some terms are disputed. Yet, for all your cloudy speak, you do not offer any explanations yourself. So to be crystal clear: I disagree with you because I do not think life has ever spontaneously formed. I think that is an impossibility, and I fail to see where the laws of physics dictate spontaneous eruption of life. I never read a post where Freethinker wrote that, either, so I don't know why you are using that as a point in this argument. 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. You *assumed* he was talking about spontaneous creation of life. Your mistake. As with all science, theories are based on hypotheses which are tested. There is a *lot* of research on how self-replicating molecules evolve. Here is one example: http://www.eastman.ucl.ac.uk/~thutton/Evolution/Squirm3/EvSelfReps/ So I ask you: What is your opinion on how life formed in the first place? (And for the record: you may be TeleMad but I am not TorMod - it's Tormod). Tormod Quote
Tim_Lou Posted June 6, 2004 Author Report Posted June 6, 2004 hmm, building blocks of life come are proven to be possibily created by labouratory, but no organisms are being made (only pre-cell) puting blocks of molecules does not create life. life needs a controlling center to regulate everything within. (not just a piece of DNA floating around) so, does it suggest that some extra energy is needed?like energy of soul? Quote
TeleMad Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Uncle Martin: ************************** TeleMad: " the big bang itself produced only hydrogen and helium (and a smattering of lithium)." ************************** WRONG! The big bang produced space/time and energy/matter. WRONG! Because I was RIGHT! But, YOU are GUILTY OF QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT!!!! Here's my full statement, which Uncle Martin mangled in a failed attempt to show me to be wrong. TeleMad: As far as elements, the big bang itself produced only hydrogen and helium (and a smattering of lithium). My statement was perfectly valid...until Uncle Martin got his hands on it and manipulated it. Quote
Tim_Lou Posted June 6, 2004 Author Report Posted June 6, 2004 big bang--> particles... --> quarks, leptons, anti-particles...-->hydrogen--> helium --> heavy elements (lithium + some hydrogen = carbon and some particles)---> building blocks of life -?-> life. so, big bang indirectly produced heavy elements? Quote
TeleMad Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Uncle Martin: ********************************* TeleMad: "Virtually nothing in our universe was created in the big bang." ********************************* WRONG!! No, I’m RIGHT!!! You're just playing more games, after also disingenuously leaving out the several explanatory examples I provided. Word games and quoting games seem to be your forte. Here are my actual - uncut - statements again. This time, pay attention to 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. Now, by your claiming that I was WRONG!!, are you implicitly asserting that mountains, oceans, rocks, and planets were created in the big bang? Are you asserting that carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur were created in the big bang? Are you asserting that animals, plants, and bacteria were created in the big bang? Gee, please support these positions of yours :-) Quote
TeleMad Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Tormod: You wrote that "the ability of the laws of physics to produce life spontaneously has never been demonstrated by science". … However, I am not sure anyone has tried to formulate any theory of "spontaneous production of life". TeleMad: That’s what the study of the origin of life is all about. Tormod: Again, no. … The only ones (as far as I know) who claim that life arose spontaneously are creationists in one form or another. Wrong...in fact, completely backwards. Mainstream "naturalistic" scientists are the ones who believe life arose spontaneously – Creationists are the ones that believe that it didn’t: than an external influence – a supernatural being…their God – miraculously “poofed” life into existence. More below... TeleMad: In the context of the origin of life, [life] is any self-sustaining molecule or system of molecules capable of replicating and evolving. Tormod: Exactly. So life did not arise spontaneously. It needed many building blocks before it could start to evolve. That is where I think you are driving down a blind alley. No, my usage of the term spontaneous is quite correct. But judging from your last couple of responses about it, you appear to be misinterpreting the term. For example, your last comment seems to be saying that life’s origin couldn’t be spontaneous because a lot of time would be required for the many building blocks to be formed, combine, and start to evolving. 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. And your other comment had things exactly backwards - with Creationists supposedly holdin that the origin of life was a spontaneous event whereas scientists did not. 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. Quote
Uncle Martin Posted June 6, 2004 Report Posted June 6, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMadWRONG! Because I was RIGHT! But, YOU are GUILTY OF QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT!!!! Here's my full statement, which Uncle Martin mangled in a failed attempt to show me to be wrong. TeleMad: As far as elements, the big bang itself produced only hydrogen and helium (and a smattering of lithium). My statement was perfectly valid...until Uncle Martin got his hands on it and manipulated it. I quoted you exactly!!! If you wish to restate your original comment fine, BUT, "WRONG! Because I was right!" is not a valid argument. I'm not alone in refuting your wording. You are the one that took freethinkers post out of context. I suggest you think before you type in the future. Quote
Uncle Martin Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMadUncle Martin: ********************************* TeleMad: "Virtually nothing in our universe was created in the big bang." ********************************* WRONG!! No, I’m RIGHT!!! You're just playing more games, after also disingenuously leaving out the several explanatory examples I provided. Word games and quoting games seem to be your forte. Once again, think before you type. It seems you are often misunderstood. Is it possible that everyone else is wrong? Yes, but not likely. Quote
TeleMad Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 TorMod: It is generally believed (by non-creationists, mind) that life arose from prebiotic structures which had the ability to reproduce. TeleMad: Right, **generally believed**. But FreeThinker didn’t offer his original statement - about our existence being a natural occurence of the laws of physics - as a mere belief, but as a fact. However, scientific experimentation has not confirmed that belief yet – it’s still an assumption, whether it is correct or not. 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. 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. Also, note that I have said that what FreeThinker stated is an assumption, whether it is right or wrong. To be clear, I have not stated that FreeThinker’s assumption is wrong. 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. 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. 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 making assumptions…I haven’t said they are false. In fact, I have said that they are assumptions whether they are right or wrong! Tormod: … and 2) showing that some terms are disputed. No, by showing that some terms are being misused by those arguing against me...terms such as big bang, big bang theory, and spontaneous. Tormod: Yet, for all your cloudy speak, you do not offer any explanations yourself. Because there are none…at least not yet. Those who pretend it’s all been worked out and that their position is actually fact are wrong. Tormod: So to be crystal clear: I disagree with you because I do not think life has ever spontaneously formed. I think that is an impossibility … Which would make you a Creationist ;-) 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. Which is only an assumption based on the philosophical position of naturalism. Have you or FreeThinker literally disproven the existence of all possible> Gods? Quote
TeleMad Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 Uncle Martin: Once again, think before you type. I did. I pointed out your back-to-back lowlife tactics That's exactly what I meant to type. If you've got a problem with what I typed in my replies to you, then stop being disingenuous. Uncle Martin: It seems you are often misunderstood. LOL! You twice distort my statements - leaving out key parts and then pretending I said something I didn't - and then have the nerve to try to dump the blame off onto me!?!?! You're a riot! Quote
TeleMad Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 Tim_Lou: hmm, building blocks of life come are proven to be possibily created by labouratory, but no organisms are being made (only pre-cell) puting blocks of molecules does not create life. life needs a controlling center to regulate everything within. (not just a piece of DNA floating around) so, does it suggest that some extra energy is needed? like energy of soul? Looking at things from your apparently religious position....Do bacteria have a soul? If not, then a soul is not needed for life to arise (especially since the first life form would have been far simpler than the simplest current living cell). On a more scientific basis, science has found that all cells examined operate completely according to the laws of physics and chemistry: everything they do can be explained naturally. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that anything "beyond nature" exists, scientists conclude there is no reason to look outside of natural law for the origin of life. Quote
Tim_Lou Posted June 7, 2004 Author Report Posted June 7, 2004 "Do bacteria have a soul?" bacteria is a cell and we are all made of cells. if cells do not have soul, nor do we. Quote
TeleMad Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 Tim_Lou: *************** "Do bacteria have a soul?" *************** bacteria is a cell and we are all made of cells. if cells do not have soul, nor do we. So you are saying that a bacterium has a soul..right? So when the righteous die and go to heaven, they'll be overrun by the trillions of trillions of trillions of bacteria that have died? And all the trillions of roaches that have died? And all the trillions of ants, worms, beetles, etc. that have died? Quote
Tim_Lou Posted June 7, 2004 Author Report Posted June 7, 2004 yes... it might not sound right... but at least it is better than saying bacteria doesnt have soul.a human is like a symbiotic relationship of trillions of cells... so, you mean that souls dont exist? Quote
Uncle Martin Posted June 7, 2004 Report Posted June 7, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMadUncle Martin: Once again, think before you type. I did. I pointed out your back-to-back lowlife tactics That's exactly what I meant to type. If you've got a problem with what I typed in my replies to you, then stop being disingenuous. Uncle Martin: It seems you are often misunderstood. LOL! You twice distort my statements - leaving out key parts and then pretending I said something I didn't - and then have the nerve to try to dump the blame off onto me!?!?! You're a riot! Since you seem impervious to logical reasoning I will not continue to amuse you. Futility is a lesson I learned long ago so I'll waste no more time on this pettiness. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.