the origin of the living cell
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 05:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 05:08 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Ooooooh...I hate paradoxes. Lol. If at some point the guy doesn't do it again..we're not here...

There is also the fact that bacteria can survive in deep space and reentry if living inside a meteor. A few strikes containing proto-bacteria would be all it takes on a hospitable planet.

But that just moves the origin without explaining it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-06-2013, 07:17 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 07:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 05:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  There is also the fact that bacteria can survive in deep space and reentry if living inside a meteor. A few strikes containing proto-bacteria would be all it takes on a hospitable planet.

But that just moves the origin without explaining it.

That is true, but it would explain life on this planet. It might prove that the original proto-bacteria developed in deep space from a dying star. It's how everything else came to be.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2013, 07:21 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 07:17 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 07:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  But that just moves the origin without explaining it.

That is true, but it would explain life on this planet. It might prove that the original proto-bacteria developed in deep space from a dying star. It's how everything else came to be.

Seems unlikely. A dying star is not a kindly neighborhood.Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-06-2013, 07:27 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 04:20 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  Atheists must provide scientifically proven evidence that a cell could come into existence without the divine intervention of a Creator. So what evidence exists that this has happened?

No, we don't. Scientists are working on it.

Quote:If they cannot present evidence that the cell came into existence without a designing Creator their atheistic beliefs are without foundation and are born dead, without any basis.[/u]

We present effort, the ongoing work of discovery. Your absolutism and childish need for answers is typical of the religious mindset.

A rational, mature person understands that an honest answer is "We don't know, but we're working on it".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
08-06-2013, 07:31 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 07:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 07:17 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  That is true, but it would explain life on this planet. It might prove that the original proto-bacteria developed in deep space from a dying star. It's how everything else came to be.

Seems unlikely. A dying star is not a kindly neighborhood.Consider

Hey there are nebulas made of alcohol so who's to say what all exists in deep space. But yes it is unlikely but if life only has a 1 in a quintillion chance we know it hit the lucky number at least once. It is an interesting subject when you remove the religious "If'n you dunno that means Gaaawwwwwwwddddd" from it.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2013, 07:35 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 07:31 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 07:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Seems unlikely. A dying star is not a kindly neighborhood.Consider

Hey there are nebulas made of alcohol so who's to say what all exists in deep space. But yes it is unlikely but if life only has a 1 in a quintillion chance we know it hit the lucky number at least once. It is an interesting subject when you remove the religious "If'n you dunno that means Gaaawwwwwwwddddd" from it.

It is absolutely one of the most interesting subjects. Thumbsup

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2013, 08:02 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 04:20 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  If they cannot present evidence that the cell came into existence without a designing Creator their atheistic beliefs are without foundation and are born dead, without any basis.[/u]

Atheists do not have beliefs. Atheist simply means a person with no belief in a god.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
08-06-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 08:02 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(08-06-2013 04:20 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  If they cannot present evidence that the cell came into existence without a designing Creator their atheistic beliefs are without foundation and are born dead, without any basis.[/u]

Atheists do not have beliefs. Atheist simply means a person with no belief in a god.

I'm pretty sure the OP was a drive-by, but yeah that is one of the stupidest statements regarding Atheism.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2013, 08:58 PM
RE: the origin of the living cell
Some two-year-old, in his high chair, slamming his sippy cup, demanding "why." That's all I got out of it.

Life just ain't mysterious to me. Buncha geometry and tipping point, consciousness is a threshold value, and assholes need to justify their own fairy tales. Heck, Emma is my sacred text, ya hear me complaining?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
08-06-2013, 09:04 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2013 01:24 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: the origin of the living cell
(08-06-2013 04:20 PM)Dan Steeves Wrote:  I have a question for atheists. Modern science now knows that the living cell is staggeringly and marvellously complex together with the DNA and RNA genetic code that replicates the cell. Microbiologists are only scratching the surface as regards their understanding of the complexity of the cell.

What scientific explanation can atheists offer as to how the cell came into existence and then became a LIVING cell? Because there is a great difference between a dead cell and a living cell. What was the guiding force that caused the cell to come into existence? Any structure, great or small, must have a solid foundation. Atheists must provide scientifically proven evidence that a cell could come into existence without the divine intervention of a Creator. So what evidence exists that this has happened? If they cannot present evidence that the cell came into existence without a designing Creator their atheistic beliefs are without foundation and are born dead, without any basis.[/u]

1. Cell Biologists know a LOT about how cells work. You may not, but they do.
2. Atheists don't have to "do" or explain a damn thing. The default position is "we don't know everything yet". NOT, "oh if I have ANY unexplained phenomenon, I will just cook up a god to explain it". If you want to assert something, then prove it. If you NEED to have an explanation for everything before noon TODAY, then keep up your tantrum, ya baby. The "divine intervention" is the LAST possible explanation one would look at. Not the default "plug-in" for any unknown. You don't get to decide anything for anyone else. Nice try at forcing the entire world into you childish worldview.

Here is a model of how it may have happened. They've replicated it in the lab. Just proves you know nothing about the subject.
However the premise is invalid. It's called "god of the gaps".
Just because someone doesn't "get" how something happened or works, does not justify cooking up a god, or attributing it to the gods.
Which god are you talking about ? A god is the very last thing one would attribute an unknown to.
BTW, just because something appears to be very complex is an indication of nothing.
It's relative to your understanding, and made of small parts, each of which "additively"
and in them self are not "irreducibly" complex. If you or anyone, saw a jet engine, or a Blackhawk fighter 200 years ago, you/they would assume it was made by the gods.

So, just to sum up. Your point is false, on the facts, and on principle.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: