Bango Skank
New Member
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
Therefore creationism debunked.
Bernhard.visscher said:
Therefore creationism debunked.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Science Law - Life Comes From Life
- Thread starter Bango Skank
- Start date
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
Greetings,
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
And your scientific evidence for this "science law"?Bernhard.visscher said:
Kindest regards,
James
Rumraket
Active Member
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
See, now your not-even-an-argument has been completely undermined.
If you deny that all life is made of cells which are made of atoms, you are violating the inductive principle of total evidence.
Here is another law, just as well supported (in fact it's the same evidence for both laws): All life is made of cells, which are made of atoms.Bernhard.visscher said:
See, now your not-even-an-argument has been completely undermined.
If you deny that all life is made of cells which are made of atoms, you are violating the inductive principle of total evidence.
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
[/quote]
Bernhard, you don't understand the rules of the forum.
Atheist don't have to prove anything, they can simply affirm that there is an unknown natural mechanism that can create life without preexisting life,
And your scientific evidence for this "science law"?Bernhard.visscher said:
[/quote]
Bernhard, you don't understand the rules of the forum.
Atheist don't have to prove anything, they can simply affirm that there is an unknown natural mechanism that can create life without preexisting life,
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
Not how laws works; laws are descriptions of the relationships between two quantities in a natural phenomenon.
https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html
The words 'life arises from life' are a hypothesis.
You don't get to declare 'never been disproved' until you go and try to falsify it.
If you can't falsify it, then other people would try to.
These other attempts at falsification would lead to a network of hypotheses surrounding the contention.
Then, only then, might it graduate to a theory, because that's the highest level of explanatory framework in science.
Of course, your claim is right only from today's perspective where life reproduces and the world's biomes are full of life.
But you cannot claim it is so for eternity because a) you'd need evidence and b) it's illogical.
For example, go back past 4.5 billion years ago, and there was no planet. So life couldn't have been there prior to the planet being there, so either life originated there or it was introduced from outside. If it was introduced from outside, then all you've done is shuffle one step towards an infinite regression.
Bernhard.visscher said:
Not how laws works; laws are descriptions of the relationships between two quantities in a natural phenomenon.
https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html
The words 'life arises from life' are a hypothesis.
You don't get to declare 'never been disproved' until you go and try to falsify it.
If you can't falsify it, then other people would try to.
These other attempts at falsification would lead to a network of hypotheses surrounding the contention.
Then, only then, might it graduate to a theory, because that's the highest level of explanatory framework in science.
Of course, your claim is right only from today's perspective where life reproduces and the world's biomes are full of life.
But you cannot claim it is so for eternity because a) you'd need evidence and b) it's illogical.
For example, go back past 4.5 billion years ago, and there was no planet. So life couldn't have been there prior to the planet being there, so either life originated there or it was introduced from outside. If it was introduced from outside, then all you've done is shuffle one step towards an infinite regression.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
Greetings,
Bernhard made a positive claim - it's up to him to provide the testable evidence for that positive claim.
Biochemistry - "the chemistry of life" - is a sub-set of chemistry: it is the chemistry of carbon.
The transition from inorganic to organic chemistry occurs when one atom of hydrogen, and one atom of carbon, form a chemical bond called the hydro-carbon bond.
At which point you're at the foot of the mountain that leads to the first cell.
Life - abiogenesis - occurs somewhere on the path up the mountain.
It's that simple.
Kindest regards,
James
Greetings,
The rules are simple: any positive claim should be supported with testable evidence..leroy said:
Bernhard made a positive claim - it's up to him to provide the testable evidence for that positive claim.
It's called the laws of chemistry, leroy.leroy said:
Biochemistry - "the chemistry of life" - is a sub-set of chemistry: it is the chemistry of carbon.
The transition from inorganic to organic chemistry occurs when one atom of hydrogen, and one atom of carbon, form a chemical bond called the hydro-carbon bond.
At which point you're at the foot of the mountain that leads to the first cell.
Life - abiogenesis - occurs somewhere on the path up the mountain.
It's that simple.
Kindest regards,
James
MarsCydonia
New Member
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
If "life comes from life" is an unviolable scientific law then:
1. This disproves god created life.
or
2. Science is discarded and irrelevant for this "scientific law".
It's a loss-loss scenario for those who spout it. Congratulations.
My comment wasn't moved so I'll point this out here again:Bango Skank said:
If "life comes from life" is an unviolable scientific law then:
1. This disproves god created life.
or
2. Science is discarded and irrelevant for this "scientific law".
It's a loss-loss scenario for those who spout it. Congratulations.
As Rumraket the ultimate answer is "we don't know",
but imagine that you are told that there are 2 parallel universes (this universe and some other universe that may or may not have different laws) and you are told that in one of these universes life was created naturally and in the other life was created by an intelligent designer.
given this scenario you are asked to provide your best guess.
in what universe do we live?
A) the universe where life had a natural origin?
B the universe where life was designed?
given this scenario (hypothetical of course) I would say that B is more likely to be true,
I am willing to defend this position, only against people who affirm that A.
but imagine that you are told that there are 2 parallel universes (this universe and some other universe that may or may not have different laws) and you are told that in one of these universes life was created naturally and in the other life was created by an intelligent designer.
given this scenario you are asked to provide your best guess.
in what universe do we live?
A) the universe where life had a natural origin?
B the universe where life was designed?
given this scenario (hypothetical of course) I would say that B is more likely to be true,
I am willing to defend this position, only against people who affirm that A.
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
wow the fact that you repeated that stupid comment in this new thread indicates that you honestly think that you are making a good point.
Miracles are suppose to disobey scientific laws, the point is that the only way to have life from none life is if you disobey a natural law (miracle), if you grant this law, it would imply that life had a miraculous origin.
if you don't grant this law, then you have a to carry heavy burden proof and explain why things where different 4.5B years ago.....
MarsCydonia said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
wow the fact that you repeated that stupid comment in this new thread indicates that you honestly think that you are making a good point.
Miracles are suppose to disobey scientific laws, the point is that the only way to have life from none life is if you disobey a natural law (miracle), if you grant this law, it would imply that life had a miraculous origin.
if you don't grant this law, then you have a to carry heavy burden proof and explain why things where different 4.5B years ago.....
MarsCydonia
New Member
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
So Bernard, see, Leroy is a christian and just admitted that life can come from non-life (he's just too stupid to realize it).
Wow, Leroy just admitted that this "scientific law" is violable.leroy said:
So Bernard, see, Leroy is a christian and just admitted that life can come from non-life (he's just too stupid to realize it).
Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis
Errr no. You are wrong and garbled in every instance.
Life is not some magical thing as per your argument would require.
It is how certain types of molecules behave in a specific circumstance.
Life is a behavior of those molecules, not a distinct quantity that exists independently of those molecules. Show me wrong by pointing to a single thing in the universe which is alive without molecules.
Finally, laws are DESCRIPTIONS not PRESCRIPTIONS.
The fact that you argue contrarily to this shows how little you comprehend.
The fact that you have been educated about this a dozen times in the past and still continue to make this mistake is why Creationism is an intellectual recidivism.
leroy said:
Errr no. You are wrong and garbled in every instance.
Life is not some magical thing as per your argument would require.
It is how certain types of molecules behave in a specific circumstance.
Life is a behavior of those molecules, not a distinct quantity that exists independently of those molecules. Show me wrong by pointing to a single thing in the universe which is alive without molecules.
Finally, laws are DESCRIPTIONS not PRESCRIPTIONS.
The fact that you argue contrarily to this shows how little you comprehend.
The fact that you have been educated about this a dozen times in the past and still continue to make this mistake is why Creationism is an intellectual recidivism.