Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,905 Year: 4,162/9,624 Month: 1,033/974 Week: 360/286 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did it start?
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2332 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 46 of 162 (104572)
05-01-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by laserlover
05-01-2004 2:33 PM


Re: First Cell
Correct me if I'm wrong but this IS the Origin of Life forum and your question WAS concerning the first cell?
Please stay on topic.
The majority of your post have nothing to do with this issue. God's existance or lack there of belong in the Faith and Belief forum.
Everyone please limit your responses to the cell issue.
edited to fix typo
[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 05-01-2004]

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 2:33 PM laserlover has not replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 162 (104584)
05-01-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
05-01-2004 5:04 AM


Re: Agnostic
Which "History" are you specifically referring to and to which "God"?
Man has many but only one exists.
In order to state that there is no proof for God's existence, you would have to know all of the alleged proofs that exist in order to then make the assumption that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since you cannot know all things, you cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence.
At best, an atheist can only proclaim that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. You could even say that you believe there are no proof(s) for God's existence. But then, this means that there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there that exist and that you simply have not yet encountered one.
Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's omnipotence, would you be able to accept it given that your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the you have a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God's existence, you would have to change your presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure on your part. Therefore, you as an atheist are presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence and are less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2004 5:04 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 05-01-2004 5:11 PM laserlover has not replied
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2004 5:11 PM laserlover has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 162 (104594)
05-01-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by laserlover
05-01-2004 3:38 PM


Re: Agnostic
What in God's name(s) does any of that have to do with the thread?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 3:38 PM laserlover has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 49 of 162 (104595)
05-01-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by laserlover
05-01-2004 3:38 PM


Re: Agnostic Topic
Sorry but we have, indeed, wandered off topic. If you want to propose a new topic on this I'll put a little into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 3:38 PM laserlover has not replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 162 (104626)
05-01-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jackal25
03-23-2004 5:50 PM


Re: First Cell
If, despite near virtual impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest of reason to believe they could ever form a membrane encased, self reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell.a There is no evidence that any stable state exists between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist in history has ever demonstrated that this fantastic leap in complexity could have happenedeven if the entire universe had been filled with proteins.
To believe anything otherwise would take a huge leap of faith on the atheists side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jackal25, posted 03-23-2004 5:50 PM Jackal25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 9:06 PM laserlover has replied
 Message 52 by jar, posted 05-01-2004 9:09 PM laserlover has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 162 (104636)
05-01-2004 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by laserlover
05-01-2004 7:48 PM


There is no evidence that any stable state exists between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells.
What do you mean by "living"?
Seriously. What qualities must be present for something to be considered living?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 7:48 PM laserlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 9:35 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 55 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 9:35 PM crashfrog has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 162 (104637)
05-01-2004 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by laserlover
05-01-2004 7:48 PM


Re: First Cell
Well, as a Christian, is it as large a leap of faith?
What does this have to do with the topic?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 7:48 PM laserlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 9:33 PM jar has not replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 162 (104642)
05-01-2004 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
05-01-2004 9:09 PM


Re: First Cell
It has everything to do with the topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 05-01-2004 9:09 PM jar has not replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 162 (104643)
05-01-2004 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
05-01-2004 9:06 PM


Re: First Cell
If, despite near virtual impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest of reason to believe they could ever form a membrane encased, self reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell.a There is no evidence that any stable state exists between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist in history has ever demonstrated that this fantastic leap in complexity could have happenedeven if the entire universe had been filled with proteins.
To believe anything otherwise would take a huge leap of faith on the atheists side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 9:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 162 (104644)
05-01-2004 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
05-01-2004 9:06 PM


Re: First Cell
living ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lvng)
adj.
Possessing life: famous living painters; transplanted living tissue.
In active function or use: a living language.
Of persons who are alive: events within living memory.
Relating to the routine conduct or maintainance of life: improved living conditions in the city.
Full of life, interest, or vitality: made history a living subject.
True to life; realistic: the living image of her mother.
Informal. Used as an intensive: beat the living hell out of his opponent in the boxing match.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 9:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 9:55 PM laserlover has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 162 (104648)
05-01-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by laserlover
05-01-2004 9:35 PM


So what you're saying is, you don't know what "living" means at all in this context. Why didn't you just say so instead of quoting irrelevant definitions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 9:35 PM laserlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 10:39 PM crashfrog has replied

laserlover
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 162 (104662)
05-01-2004 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
05-01-2004 9:55 PM


Can you possibly stay on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 9:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 11:12 PM laserlover has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 162 (104667)
05-01-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by laserlover
05-01-2004 10:39 PM


Can you possibly answer my question?
After all, the topic is precursors to living cells, right? Well, I can hardly tell you what the precursor is without knowing where the line between living and non-living is.
I can only presume, though, that your refusal to even attempt to answer a pertinent question is evidence that you're not even remotely interested in learning about the precursors to life - you're just interested in taking potshots at a theory you don't begin to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 10:39 PM laserlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AdminAsgara, posted 05-01-2004 11:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2332 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 59 of 162 (104672)
05-01-2004 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
05-01-2004 11:12 PM


Thanks Crash, your observation made me take a deeper look into our new friend Lazarus1.
Can everyone say laserlover?
He has been suspended under this name also.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 11:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 506 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 60 of 162 (104695)
05-02-2004 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by laserlover
05-01-2004 2:33 PM


Re: First Cell
First of all, I just want to be clear that I understand Lazarus1 (or the laser boy) has been suspended. I know that he can't respond.
Lazarus1 writes:
What you have given are nothing more than hypothesis and crude kitchen experiments all the while failing to answer the question as to where the first living cell came from.
This sentence alone doesn't say anything about your argument. If you want people to take you seriously next time, support your claim with more than just a simple assertion. Also, you might want to take some biology classes or read some non-religious based books on the matter. This sentence alone pretty much show just how ignorant you are of the topic being addressed.
Proving that something exists is simple. Just show where it is.
Proving that something does not exist is not as simple as it might seem. First, you investigate all you know. After you have explored all you know, and all that anyone else knows, and found nothing, you have only one more thing to do. Investigate the unknown.
Wait a minute. How do you investigate the unknown? The answer is, you can’t. As much as you might expand your knowledge, even to the ends of every detail in the universe, you cannot escape the idea that there might be something more beyond that.
Some atheists or agnostics will use the following demonstration: God, if you exist, strike me down, now! When God does not oblige by striking them down, they rest on the proof that God does not exist.
Suppose I make an analogy: I tell you all about my friend Bob, and what a great guy he is. Since you never have met Bob, and he sounds a little eccentric to you, maybe you do not choose to believe I have a friend named Bob. Maybe you don’t think I deserve such a friend. Or maybe you think it’s out of character for me to have any friends! So you decide to put an end to my fakery by calling out to the sky, Bob, if you exist, come punch me in the nose! Since Bob does not show up, you confront me with the fact that there is no Bob, and ask me not to speak of him again.
What did you do wrong? You didn’t use the proper mode of communication to reach Bob. Had you asked me before your test, I could have told you that Bob is visiting his aunt, and gave me her number: 555-6789! You could have contacted Bob, and believed in him.
It is similar in the case of asking God to strike you down. God is willing to prove his existence to you in many ways, but asking him to upset the natural order of the world he set up is not in His usual repertoire. The way Saul was converted is a notable exception. But most of us receive some small reassurance or answer to prayer to help us on the road to faith. That’s what you should ask God for. A small sign that would seem insignificant to others, but which would be proof to you, because it came very soon after you asked for it.
Throughout the gospels, Jesus makes it clear that God fulfills our requests based on faith. Asking vainly to be struck down by God, expecting nothing to happen, is rewarded according to its measure of faith.
A little less preaching and a little more demonstration of human reasoning on your part will bring you farther in life. Take my word for it. One day, you will come to realize that people around you are laughing at you behind (or in front of) your back.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by laserlover, posted 05-01-2004 2:33 PM laserlover has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024