this is my last day posting in et

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from stu:

"Your quote was entertaining now that science is proving you wrong about evolution..."
"My point is now science realizes it has no proof that life evolved from non life"



Evolution is nothing to do with life from non life,...

This does not sound right. My first thoughts are that there is no bright line separating life from non-life, but that the same forces of physics and chemistry are at work on both sides of that line. And clearly, complex, self-replicating molecules, the very first entities on the other side of that line, "survived" (and are surviving), and grew in complexity.
 
Quote from Ricter:

This does not sound right. My first thoughts are that there is no bright line separating life from non-life, but that the same forces of physics and chemistry are at work on both sides of that line. And clearly, complex, self-replicating molecules, the very first entities on the other side of that line, "survived" (and are surviving), and grew in complexity.
Are you saying in essence some of the same physics and chemistry can be in play on both a rock and a living organism. Then I agree. Yes they can and are so.

I'm not sure though why don't see a bright line between the two?
Do you not differentiate between living and non-living entities and how certain of the same physics and chemistry can apply to both?

Darwin demonstrated why species originated and explained evolution not how life first came about.
He was in no way involved in how physics and chemistry could convert inorganic matter into the basic building blocks of life.

You reference to survival is unclear. The same forces are resulting in two specific categories. Living and non-living.
 
Quote from stu:

Are you saying in essence some of the same physics and chemistry can be in play on both a rock and a living organism. Then I agree. Yes they can.

I'm not sure though why don't see a bright line between the two?
Do you not differentiate between living and non-living entities and how certain of the same physics and chemistry can apply to both?

Darwin demonstrated why species originated and explained evolution not how life first came about.
He was in no way involved in how physics and chemistry could convert inorganic matter into the basic building blocks of life.

You reference to survival is unclear. The same forces are resulting in two specific categories. Living and non-living.

Prions...viruses...bacteria. It's not clear exactly where, but it's in there somewhere.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Prions...viruses...bacteria. It's not clear exactly where, but it's in there somewhere.
Mountains don't self replicate. Prions do.
Seriously what are you tryin to suggest ? That there is no fundemental difference between a rock and a commodity trader?

....on second thoughts.:D
 
Quote from stu:

Mountains don't self replicate. Prions do.
Seriously what are you tryin to suggest ? That there is no fundemental difference between a rock and a commodity trader?

....on second thoughts.:D

Lol, I don't know commodity traders, I'll take your word for that!

I'm saying there is no bright line. It's easy to see the difference between widely separated entities like your examples, but not easy between closely placed entities right at the "cusp" of life. Last I heard, but this is years old, there is still no agreement on whether viruses are truly alive. But I do think prions are not considered living.
 
Quote from stu:

Seriously what are you tryin to suggest ? That there is no fundemental difference between a rock and a commodity trader?

I think he meant there's no difference between a rock and a liberal.
 
Quote from stu:

"Your quote was entertaining now that science is proving you wrong about evolution..."
"My point is now science realizes it has no proof that life evolved from non life"



Evolution is nothing to do with life from non life, you were already advised of that earlier.
Specific Nobel prize winners and other top scientists are not saying what you say they are, you were already advised of that earlier too.

So why your obsessive repetition of faulty reasoning? It's looking like a disorder.

you are a writer of fiction. you have not advised me about anything because you have been arguing with facts, with quotes and with science in all our discussions.

So, lets nail down the issues so you can stop lying about what I say and focus on the facts.

1. do you now agree there is no proof that life evolved from non life?
yes or no.
 
We need to keep bumping this thread everytime the Useful Idiot free thinker starts a new thread.
smiley-char002.gif
 
Quote from Petsamo:

We need to keep bumping this thread everytime the Useful Idiot free thinker starts a new thread.
smiley-char002.gif

Two to three times a day? Seems a bit extreme to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top