Discussion:
life from life
(too old to reply)
Dale
2015-10-15 01:56:04 UTC
Permalink
no matter the particular debate

there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life

I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life

even natural selection is subject to biogenesis, life imparts
information to life besides heredity of genes, at least in sentient
life, as far as I have observed
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Dale
2015-10-15 03:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
even natural selection is subject to biogenesis, life imparts
information to life besides heredity of genes, at least in sentient
life, as far as I have observed
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
How much empirical evidence have you seen for god or gods or fairies or pixies or hobgoblins or ghosts or leprechauns?
I said biogenesis, not any of the above, maybe life has always existed
and is just "new" on earth

though, there are many religious texts and tales that claim observation
of the above,

observation is held as a standard for empiricism, doesn't always have
full statistical rigor, for instance relativity has never been taken to
a statistically designed experiment

theism is way more prevalent than atheism, can you really say the middle
of the curve is that far off?

if atheism is the dominant trait, why has religion prevailed for so
long? if only as a tool?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-15 09:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
even natural selection is subject to biogenesis, life imparts
information to life besides heredity of genes, at least in sentient
life, as far as I have observed
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
How much empirical evidence have you seen for god or gods or fairies or pixies or hobgoblins or ghosts or leprechauns?
I said biogenesis, not any of the above, maybe life has always existed
and is just "new" on earth
Don't be so fucking stupid.

Here's a clue...

Was there life at the big bang, before there were even any elements?
Post by Dale
though, there are many religious texts and tales that claim observation
of the above,
They lie.
Post by Dale
observation is held as a standard for empiricism, doesn't always have
full statistical rigor, for instance relativity has never been taken to
a statistically designed experiment
Idiot.
Post by Dale
theism is way more prevalent than atheism, can you really say the middle
of the curve is that far off?
Theism is the world of the ignorant, superstitious and uneducated.
Post by Dale
if atheism is the dominant trait, why has religion prevailed for so
long? if only as a tool?
The moron has no idea what atheism is.
Jeanne Douglas
2015-10-15 11:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
even natural selection is subject to biogenesis, life imparts
information to life besides heredity of genes, at least in sentient
life, as far as I have observed
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
How much empirical evidence have you seen for god or gods or fairies or
pixies or hobgoblins or ghosts or leprechauns?
I said biogenesis, not any of the above, maybe life has always existed
and is just "new" on earth
Then all you've done is push the question farther away and farther back.
It's not a solution.
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Jeanne Douglas
2015-10-15 11:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
even natural selection is subject to biogenesis, life imparts
information to life besides heredity of genes, at least in sentient
life, as far as I have observed
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
How much empirical evidence have you seen for god or gods or fairies or
pixies or hobgoblins or ghosts or leprechauns?
I said biogenesis, not any of the above, maybe life has always existed
and is just "new" on earth
though, there are many religious texts and tales that claim observation
of the above,
observation is held as a standard for empiricism, doesn't always have
full statistical rigor, for instance relativity has never been taken to
a statistically designed experiment
theism is way more prevalent than atheism, can you really say the middle
of the curve is that far off?
Yes. But it is correcting quite quickly now.
Post by Dale
if atheism is the dominant trait, why has religion prevailed for so
long? if only as a tool?
Because it's only quite recently that we've started getting answers to
the questions that made people create religions. As more people get an
education, religion's gonna have trouble hanging on to them all.
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Mitchell Holman
2015-10-15 12:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
theism is way more prevalent than atheism, can you really say the
middle of the curve is that far off?
Does popular acceptance of a notion make it true?
Post by Dale
if atheism is the dominant trait, why has religion prevailed for so
long?
The triumph of hope over experience.
Dale
2015-10-17 19:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Does popular acceptance of a notion make it true?
relevance, that admittedly might need analysis
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
raven1
2015-10-15 09:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Did life always exist? No? Then at some point (or points) abiogenesis
happened. Whether or not a deity was involved or it happened through
natural processes is a separate issue.
Post by Dale
even natural selection is subject to biogenesis, life imparts
information to life besides heredity of genes, at least in sentient
life, as far as I have observed
I do not think "natural selection" means what you think it means.
Andrew
2015-10-15 10:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Did life always exist? No? Then at some point (or points) abiogenesis
happened. Whether or not a deity was involved or it happened through
natural processes is a separate issue.
Yes, and the fact that there is no possible way that
life as we know it could self originate, shows that
a Creator was involved.
raven1
2015-10-15 12:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Did life always exist? No? Then at some point (or points) abiogenesis
happened. Whether or not a deity was involved or it happened through
natural processes is a separate issue.
Yes, and the fact that there is no possible way that
life as we know it could self originate, shows that
a Creator was involved.
Argument from Ignorance is a Logic 101 fallacy, Andrew. Try again.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-15 14:37:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:25:16 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Did life always exist? No? Then at some point (or points) abiogenesis
happened. Whether or not a deity was involved or it happened through
natural processes is a separate issue.
Yes, and the fact that there is no possible way that
life as we know it could self originate, shows that
a Creator was involved.
Argument from Ignorance is a Logic 101 fallacy, Andrew. Try again.
His "self originate" is a standard fundamentalist caricature, a canard
based of his fantasy that everything was created.

Therefore if the supreme Wibbly didn't create it, it must have created
itself, which is a ridiculous and transparently false dilemma. So you
dismiss it doing it itself and you're left with his preferred version.

He has used this dishonesty many times in various situations.

It tells us more about him, his deliberate ignorance, his dishonesty
and a lot else - including his remarkably low intelligence if he
expects anybody with an IQ greater than 95 to fall for it.

But more than that, he lies through his teeth - because he's been
given results from abiogenesis research of extremely simple
proto-cells being formed perfectly naturally.

So he knows there is at least one way.
Tom McDonald
2015-10-15 17:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Did life always exist? No? Then at some point (or points) abiogenesis
happened. Whether or not a deity was involved or it happened through
natural processes is a separate issue.
Yes, and the fact that there is no possible way that
life as we know it could self originate, shows that
a Creator was involved.
Well, as we do know for a certain fact that there is no Creator in the
sense you're using the word, the well-known natural laws of the universe
are absolutely the way life began. That ---> FACT

alone proves that no Creator (sic) can possibly exist.
Andrew
2015-10-15 17:29:45 UTC
Permalink
the well-known natural laws of the universe are
absolutely the way life began. That --->FACT
If that were a fact, then you should be able to cite.

Pleased do so now.

Note: It is a fact that any conclusion that is based
upon fantasy is NOT a ---> FACT.

If you do not cite, then it would support the fact
that you are deceived.
Tom McDonald
2015-10-16 00:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
the well-known natural laws of the universe are
absolutely the way life began. That --->FACT
If that were a fact, then you should be able to cite.
Pleased do so now.
Note: It is a fact that any conclusion that is based
upon fantasy is NOT a ---> FACT.
If you do not cite, then it would support the fact
that you are deceived.
First, support your earlier contention, to which I was responding, that
a Creator was necessary to kick life off.

Without using fantasy, please.

If you don't do so, without using ---> phantasy

then, you are deceived, or are a deceiver yourself.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-16 01:55:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:55:45 -0500, Tom McDonald
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Andrew
the well-known natural laws of the universe are
absolutely the way life began. That --->FACT
If that were a fact, then you should be able to cite.
Anne Drool has been given examples from abiogenesis research many
times, so why does he keep pretending he hasn't?
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Andrew
Pleased do so now.
Note: It is a fact that any conclusion that is based
upon fantasy is NOT a ---> FACT.
So why does Anne Drool imagine his bronze-age myths and legends are
fact?
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Andrew
If you do not cite, then it would support the fact
that you are deceived.
Pointing out what has been done in the lab so often it is now routine,
is hardly the deception the in-your-face liar lies about.

And of course, being observed and the result of objective scientific
research, it is nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.
Post by Tom McDonald
First, support your earlier contention, to which I was responding, that
a Creator was necessary to kick life off.
He can't, because there are perfectly natural explanations.

He needs to demonstrate this creator, that it kicked life off _and_
demonstrate why the abiogenesis research is wrong, when it repeatably
and repeatedly produces protocells using simple natural processes.

There is simply no reason to introduce a magical superbeing for which
there is no evidence, into it.

Like most fanatical theists, he can't grasp that before he invokes it,
he has to demonstrate it - and because he is making claims for it in
the scientific arena, he has to do it scientifically.
Post by Tom McDonald
Without using fantasy, please.
If you don't do so, without using ---> phantasy
then, you are deceived, or are a deceiver yourself.
Worse than that, he is a stupid, outright liar because he repeats whet
he knows is false.

But lying in the service of his religion doesn't count as a lie -
even though that's all his involuntary audience sees.

And he's too stupid to understand that everybody doesn't share his
religious beliefs.

The lies are intended for ignorant, uneducated and unintelligent
believers, and he hasn't the sense to keep them where they belong so
he repeats them, not just outside his religion but to an educated and
more knowledgeable audience.

Here's what the proven serial liar has been given many times...

Of course, it is highly unlikely it happened exactly the same way
three or four billion years ago, but that is irrelevant. It shows
that a magical superbeing isn't necessary for it, and what they
claim is impossible without one, has been demonstrated without
one....

A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.

They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

An abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team concerning
their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell

Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu

Abstract

Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (“sulfobes”) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM.

The proven serial liar has been given this many times but never
addressed it.

Part of the problem would seem to be that these morons refuse to
accept that the earliest life was extremely simple and evolved from
there. They expect abiogenesis research to come up with fully formed
modern life because they imagine their religion's god did.
Dale
2015-10-19 04:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
Did life always exist? No?
a hypothesis?
a theory?
empirical observation?

just no?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
raven1
2015-10-19 09:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Did life always exist? No?
a hypothesis?
a theory?
empirical observation?
A question to you. You do know what "?" denotes, don't you?

So back to the point: if you're not claiming that life always existed,
then at some point, abiogenesis happened.
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-19 12:52:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 05:54:41 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Did life always exist? No?
a hypothesis?
a theory?
empirical observation?
A question to you. You do know what "?" denotes, don't you?
So back to the point: if you're not claiming that life always existed,
then at some point, abiogenesis happened.
We've been through this with the moron, over and over again - but
you'll never get through his thick skull because Christian
fundamentalists have redefined the word.

It's Humpty Dumpty English with a twist - when he uses the word it
means precisely his redefinition - and in what passes for his mind, it
also means that when you use it.
Dale
2015-10-22 02:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Did life always exist? No?
a hypothesis?
a theory?
empirical observation?
A question to you. You do know what "?" denotes, don't you?
So back to the point: if you're not claiming that life always existed,
then at some point, abiogenesis happened.
not if time is a continuum and life has always existed, for instance
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
raven1
2015-10-22 02:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Did life always exist? No?
a hypothesis?
a theory?
empirical observation?
A question to you. You do know what "?" denotes, don't you?
So back to the point: if you're not claiming that life always existed,
then at some point, abiogenesis happened.
not if time is a continuum
Whatever do you mean by that?
Post by Dale
and life has always existed, for instance
So are you arguing that?
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-22 07:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Did life always exist? No?
a hypothesis?
a theory?
empirical observation?
A question to you. You do know what "?" denotes, don't you?
So back to the point: if you're not claiming that life always existed,
then at some point, abiogenesis happened.
not if time is a continuum and life has always existed, for instance
Which it clearly hasn't, imbecile.

I suggest you look up "nucleosynthesis". then come back and tell us
when the heavier elements that are also part of life, were formed.

How do you manage to pee without somebody unzipping you and pointing
Percy at the porcelain for you?
Dale
2015-10-22 23:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which it clearly hasn't, imbecile.
maybe the spirit or essence of something always exists and it is only
instantiated in life upon conception by powers that be
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-23 00:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which it clearly hasn't, imbecile.
maybe the spirit or essence of something always exists and it is only
instantiated in life upon conception by powers that be
Idiot.
Jeanne Douglas
2015-10-23 01:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which it clearly hasn't, imbecile.
maybe the spirit or essence of something always exists and it is only
instantiated in life upon conception by powers that be
And maybe the fairies at the bottom of your garden are plotting to kill
you.

My statement is just as valid as yours.
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Dale
2015-10-27 21:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which it clearly hasn't, imbecile.
maybe the spirit or essence of something always exists and it is only
instantiated in life upon conception by powers that be
And maybe the fairies at the bottom of your garden are plotting to kill
you.
My statement is just as valid as yours.
part of what I meant

science is a process, but it isn't anything new, it is natural, it's
just more formalized

but, I think there is a place/time for metaphors, nothing new

and, "old science" includes spirituality

I just can't agree with a strong atheist stance, its kind of not science
considering the numbers of spiritualists now and in the past, is there
something the scientific "community" has that spiritualists just
wouldn't comphrehend?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-27 21:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which it clearly hasn't, imbecile.
maybe the spirit or essence of something always exists and it is only
instantiated in life upon conception by powers that be
And maybe the fairies at the bottom of your garden are plotting to kill
you.
My statement is just as valid as yours.
part of what I meant
science is a process, but it isn't anything new, it is natural, it's
just more formalized
However, modern science works - it has provided previously
undreamed-of technologies that confirm its explanations simply by
being derived from them and existing.
Post by Dale
but, I think there is a place/time for metaphors, nothing new
and, "old science" includes spirituality
Idiot. Liar.

Science is a method that researches and understands the real world,
and is the only framework that has been demonstrated to do so.

And before you presume spirituality, you have to explain exactly what
it is - in the real world beyond your religious fantasies.
Post by Dale
I just can't agree with a strong atheist stance, its kind of not science
considering the numbers of spiritualists now and in the past, is there
something the scientific "community" has that spiritualists just
wouldn't comphrehend?
All atheism is, is not believing in any god or gods.

Saying there are no gods means no more and no less than saying he same
thing about UFO abductions, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the
fairies at the bottom of the garden, etc.

It is also the falsifiable position - and you falsify it by
demonstrating the existence of gods, not by insisting it's something
it isn't.

But then you already know this.
Dale
2015-10-28 04:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Science is a method that researches and understands the real world,
and is the only framework that has been demonstrated to do so.
this has been going on since the dawn of sentient life
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-28 04:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Science is a method that researches and understands the real world,
and is the only framework that has been demonstrated to do so.
this has been going on since the dawn of sentient life
Hardly, moron.
Dale
2015-10-28 21:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Science is a method that researches and understands the real world,
and is the only framework that has been demonstrated to do so.
this has been going on since the dawn of sentient life
Hardly, moron.
do you know the definition of the word renaissance?

even just the word scientia has been around long before Newton

what thought process do you claim sentient life "used" to use to put
faith in something?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-28 22:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Science is a method that researches and understands the real world,
and is the only framework that has been demonstrated to do so.
this has been going on since the dawn of sentient life
Hardly, moron.
So what research did cavemen do to conclude that thunder was caused by
a god?
Post by Dale
do you know the definition of the word renaissance?
Have you ever shown a shred of honesty or intelligence?
Post by Dale
even just the word scientia has been around long before Newton
So frisking what?

Are you pretending that it meant the same thing as today's science?
Post by Dale
what thought process do you claim sentient life "used" to use to put
faith in something?
What a fucking moron.

Are you saying that gods were a conclusion from objective research,
instead of stories made up around the camp fire by pre-scientific,
ignorant, primitive people?
Dale
2015-10-29 03:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Science is a method that researches and understands the real world,
and is the only framework that has been demonstrated to do so.
this has been going on since the dawn of sentient life
Hardly, moron.
So what research did cavemen do to conclude that thunder was caused by
a god?
Post by Dale
do you know the definition of the word renaissance?
Have you ever shown a shred of honesty or intelligence?
I'll admit I can be casual
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
even just the word scientia has been around long before Newton
So frisking what?
Are you pretending that it meant the same thing as today's science?
no, I think the scientific process has been around long before the
renaissance, why else would there be a renaissance?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
what thought process do you claim sentient life "used" to use to put
faith in something?
What a fucking moron.
Are you saying that gods were a conclusion from objective research,
instead of stories made up around the camp fire by pre-scientific,
ignorant, primitive people?
seems to be a thread that is still going one today, and the large majority?

I think of it this way ..., it might be true, it might require faith, it
might only be metaphor, if it is valuable I might use it

the larger responsibility is in science, metaphor doesn't apply there,
there are a couple examples of science outside of its process, such as
string theory being called a theory when it is not testable
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-29 05:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Science is a method that researches and understands the real world,
and is the only framework that has been demonstrated to do so.
this has been going on since the dawn of sentient life
Hardly, moron.
So what research did cavemen do to conclude that thunder was caused by
a god?
Post by Dale
do you know the definition of the word renaissance?
Have you ever shown a shred of honesty or intelligence?
I'll admit I can be casual
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
even just the word scientia has been around long before Newton
So frisking what?
Are you pretending that it meant the same thing as today's science?
no, I think the scientific process has been around long before the
renaissance, why else would there be a renaissance?
Even if it had, was this meant to maker any sense?
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
what thought process do you claim sentient life "used" to use to put
faith in something?
What a fucking moron.
Are you saying that gods were a conclusion from objective research,
instead of stories made up around the camp fire by pre-scientific,
ignorant, primitive people?
seems to be a thread that is still going one today, and the large majority?
Idiot.
Post by Dale
I think
If only...
Post by Dale
of it this way ..., it might be true, it might require faith, it
might only be metaphor, if it is valuable I might use it
Idiot.
Post by Dale
the larger responsibility is in science, metaphor doesn't apply there,
there are a couple examples of science outside of its process, such as
string theory being called a theory when it is not testable
Nobody insists string theory is anything more than speculation,
imbecile.
Dale
2015-10-28 04:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is also the falsifiable position - and you falsify it by
demonstrating the existence of gods, not by insisting it's something
it isn't.
if you can falsify God(s) then you can test them and prove them also, so
spirituality should be explored
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-28 04:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is also the falsifiable position - and you falsify it by
demonstrating the existence of gods, not by insisting it's something
it isn't.
if you can falsify God(s) then you can test them and prove them also, so
spirituality should be explored
There is mo reason even to posit gods apart from childhood
brainwashing, because there is nothing whatsoever that points to them.

Especially to people outside their various religions who don't even
believe them in the first place.

Especially when there already perfectly natural explanations for
everything attributed to them.

So there is nothing even to consider, let alone falsify.

It is entirely up to their followers to justify them before expecting
everybody else to treat them as anything more than mere religious
beliefs - and where you are stupidly posting your mindless nonsense,
somebody else's.

But they live in a fantasy world where they don't understand basic
things like the burden of proof, or if they do then they imagine their
religious beliefs are exempt from them - after they bring them up in
the wrong place.

Were you born this stupid?
The_Inquirer
2015-10-30 13:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Questions for Christopher: How do you define gods? If you don't know
exactly what they are, how do you know what you do not believe in?

Questions for Dale: How do you falsify gods (who are more powerful than
you and who you cannot control)? if you know the strength (and at the
same time the Achilles Heel) of scientific epistemology is that you
cannot investigate something unless it is falsifiable, then why do you
insist on conforming to worldly philosophies? [in other words: if
everything can be proven, where is there room for faith?]
--
The Inquirer

The most unbiased and independent participant on Usenet. I whack both
sides of any debate with my questions. If there is a 3rd, 4th, ... etc
side, I will also whack!
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-30 15:38:18 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:21:59 +0800, The_Inquirer
Post by The_Inquirer
Questions for Christopher: How do you define gods? If you don't know
exactly what they are, how do you know what you do not believe in?
What a fucking moron.

There are people called theists who were brainwashed in childhood to
believe in things called gods..

I am not among that group.

And those are the people who define them.

I don't.

Until they provide both definition and evidence, they remain
characters from somebody else's religious mythology.

All I see is people having baseless beliefs they rudely and stupidly
wipe in the faces of those who don't share them, expecting them to be
granted.
The_Inquirer
2015-10-30 15:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:21:59 +0800, The_Inquirer
Post by The_Inquirer
Questions for Christopher: How do you define gods? If you don't know
exactly what they are, how do you know what you do not believe in?
What a fucking moron.
go fuck yourself. i am just asking questions.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There are people called theists who were brainwashed in childhood to
believe in things called gods..
I am not among that group.
anyway, you haven't answered my original question in its original
spirit. you just pushed the blame/responsibility to other people.
can there be "gods" not known/discovered/believed by current human
beings? what can these be? if there is no precise definition, is it
even meaningful to talk about whether you believe or don't believe in
"gods"?

another question: i don't play golf, but why aren't there no a-golfists?
--
The Inquirer

The most unbiased and independent participant on Usenet. I whack both
sides of any debate with my questions. If there is a 3rd, 4th, ... etc
side, I will also whack!
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-30 16:06:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:50:34 +0800, The_Inquirer
Post by The_Inquirer
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:21:59 +0800, The_Inquirer
Post by The_Inquirer
Questions for Christopher: How do you define gods? If you don't know
exactly what they are, how do you know what you do not believe in?
What a fucking moron.
go fuck yourself. i am just asking questions.
And yours to me was remarkably stupid.

What part of "it's merely somebody else's religious belief" are you
pretending you are too stupid to understand?

It's not up to me to define somebody else's god for the, But when it
makes them deny reality then what they are describing is complete
nonsense.

It's up to them to define it coherently and demonstrate it - neither
of which they are capable of doing.
Post by The_Inquirer
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There are people called theists who were brainwashed in childhood to
believe in things called gods..
I am not among that group.
anyway, you haven't answered my original question in its original
spirit. you just pushed the blame/responsibility to other people.
can there be "gods" not known/discovered/believed by current human
beings? what can these be? if there is no precise definition, is it
even meaningful to talk about whether you believe or don't believe in
"gods"?
It's not my problem, imbecile.

I wouldn't even give them a thought if theists had the commonsense and
courtesy to keep them inside their religion.

Why should I even give them a thought, when I wasn't brainwashed to
believe in them as a child?
Post by The_Inquirer
another question: i don't play golf, but why aren't there no a-golfists?
Because nobody insists to people who don't play it, that it should be
the most important thing in the world to them, imbecile?
Jeanne Douglas
2015-10-30 22:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The_Inquirer
Questions for Christopher: How do you define gods? If you don't know
exactly what they are, how do you know what you do not believe in?
Questions for Dale: How do you falsify gods (who are more powerful than
you and who you cannot control)? if you know the strength (and at the
same time the Achilles Heel) of scientific epistemology is that you
cannot investigate something unless it is falsifiable, then why do you
insist on conforming to worldly philosophies? [in other words: if
everything can be proven, where is there room for faith?]
Since faith is a serious character flaw, why does there need to be
"room" for it?
--
JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
Andrew
2015-10-30 23:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by The_Inquirer
Questions for Christopher: How do you define gods? If you don't know
exactly what they are, how do you know what you do not believe in?
Questions for Dale: How do you falsify gods (who are more powerful than
you and who you cannot control)? if you know the strength (and at the
same time the Achilles Heel) of scientific epistemology is that you
cannot investigate something unless it is falsifiable, then why do you
insist on conforming to worldly philosophies? [in other words: if
everything can be proven, where is there room for faith?]
Since faith is a serious character flaw, why does there need to be
"room" for it?
Atheists have lots of faith. They must...because they actually believe
matter and even the entire Universe appeared from ~nothing, contrary
to the laws of science. Thus showing that they have more faith than
theists.
Dale
2015-10-22 02:34:49 UTC
Permalink
protocells from proteins
I discussed this once before, this means the reproductive system can be
influenced by other systems, maybe neural, and it leaves the possibility
of second generation learning, a better evolution model but the whole
thing still starts with life, take yourself out of a lab and see if the
lab instruments can produce something without you
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-22 07:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
protocells from proteins
I discussed this once before, this means the reproductive system can be
influenced by other systems, maybe neural, and it leaves the possibility
of second generation learning, a better evolution model but the whole
thing still starts with life, take yourself out of a lab and see if the
lab instruments can produce something without you
Learn to read, imbecile.
Bob Casanova
2015-10-19 15:25:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:59:37 -0400, the following appeared
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Did life always exist? No?
a hypothesis?
Yes.
Post by Dale
a theory?
Yes.
Post by Dale
empirical observation?
Yes.
Post by Dale
just no?
He tried to keep it simple enough for you to grasp.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Andrew
2015-10-15 10:13:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
even natural selection is subject to biogenesis, life imparts
information to life besides heredity of genes, at least in sentient
life, as far as I have observed
Dale
How much empirical evidence have you seen for god or gods
or fairies or pixies or hobgoblins or ghosts or leprechauns?
What does your retort have to do with the above?

It shows that your atheistic mind ascends towards critical mass when
exposed to empirical phenomena that threatens your false worldview.
Bob Casanova
2015-10-15 17:59:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:13:53 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
even natural selection is subject to biogenesis, life imparts
information to life besides heredity of genes, at least in sentient
life, as far as I have observed
How much empirical evidence have you seen for god or gods
or fairies or pixies or hobgoblins or ghosts or leprechauns?
What does your retort have to do with the above?
As much as Dale's error in asserting that life has always
existed does.

<groups trimmed>
Post by Andrew
It shows that your atheistic mind ascends towards critical mass when
exposed to empirical phenomena that threatens your false worldview.
Mote. Beam. Eye.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Jeanne Douglas
2015-10-15 11:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Don't you believe in some god? Then you believe in abiogenesis because
you believe your god made life from non-life. The very definition of
abiogenesis.
--
JD

I’ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
R. Dean
2015-10-16 01:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Don't you believe in some god? Then you believe in abiogenesis because
you believe your god made life from non-life. The very definition of
abiogenesis.
Don't you think, he means that life could not have arisen
by natural processes? In the history of the planet, the
evidence suggest that life comes only from pre-existing life
and there is no
observed or verifiable exceptions!


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-16 01:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Don't you believe in some god? Then you believe in abiogenesis because
you believe your god made life from non-life. The very definition of
abiogenesis.
Don't you think, he means that life could not have arisen
by natural processes?
Abiogensis simply means klife from non-life.

However it happened.

But unfortunately for crteationists/fundamentalists/IDiots/etc, none
of the reserarch into it has shown the need of a god.designer/etc.

So they have dishonestly redefined the word so they can pretend it
never happened.
Post by R. Dean
In the history of the planet, the
evidence suggest that life comes only from pre-existing life
and there is no
observed or verifiable exceptions!
You know that isn't true, because you have been given the example of
protocells formed in the lab during research into it, which have
evolved into more modern cells with nucleic acids over subsequent
generations.

So why do you keep repeating this?
R. Dean
2015-10-16 02:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Don't you believe in some god? Then you believe in abiogenesis because
you believe your god made life from non-life. The very definition of
abiogenesis.
Don't you think, he means that life could not have arisen
by natural processes?
Abiogensis simply means klife from non-life.
However it happened.
But unfortunately for crteationists/fundamentalists/IDiots/etc, none
of the reserarch into it has shown the need of a god.designer/etc.
So they have dishonestly redefined the word so they can pretend it
never happened.
Post by R. Dean
In the history of the planet, the
evidence suggest that life comes only from pre-existing life
and there is no
observed or verifiable exceptions!
You know that isn't true, because you have been given the example of
protocells formed in the lab during research into it, which have
evolved into more modern cells with nucleic acids over subsequent
generations.
So why do you keep repeating this?
Created in a lab! Why do you think these engineered "cells" are alive?
http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html
http://www.hhmi.org/news/researchers-build-model-protocell-capable-copying-dna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cell


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-16 02:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Don't you believe in some god? Then you believe in abiogenesis because
you believe your god made life from non-life. The very definition of
abiogenesis.
Don't you think, he means that life could not have arisen
by natural processes?
Abiogensis simply means klife from non-life.
However it happened.
But unfortunately for crteationists/fundamentalists/IDiots/etc, none
of the reserarch into it has shown the need of a god.designer/etc.
So they have dishonestly redefined the word so they can pretend it
never happened.
Post by R. Dean
In the history of the planet, the
evidence suggest that life comes only from pre-existing life
and there is no
observed or verifiable exceptions!
You know that isn't true, because you have been given the example of
protocells formed in the lab during research into it, which have
evolved into more modern cells with nucleic acids over subsequent
generations.
So why do you keep repeating this?
Created in a lab! Why do you think these engineered "cells" are alive?
http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html
http://www.hhmi.org/news/researchers-build-model-protocell-capable-copying-dna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cell
Read the original researcher's presentation instead of ignorinmg it -
you've been given it many times already...

Of course, it is highly unlikely it happened exactly the same way
three or four billion years ago, but that is irrelevant. It shows
that a magical superbeing isn't necessary for it, and what they
claim is impossible without one, has been demonstrated without
one....

A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.

They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

An abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team concerning
their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell

Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu

Abstract

Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (“sulfobes”) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM.

The proven serial liar has been given this many times but never
addressed it.

Part of the problem would seem to be that these morons refuse to
accept that the earliest life was extremely simple and evolved from
there. They expect abiogenesis research to come up with fully formed
modern life because they imagine their religion's god did.
R. Dean
2015-10-16 17:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Don't you believe in some god? Then you believe in abiogenesis because
you believe your god made life from non-life. The very definition of
abiogenesis.
Don't you think, he means that life could not have arisen
by natural processes?
Abiogensis simply means klife from non-life.
However it happened.
But unfortunately for crteationists/fundamentalists/IDiots/etc, none
of the reserarch into it has shown the need of a god.designer/etc.
So they have dishonestly redefined the word so they can pretend it
never happened.
Post by R. Dean
In the history of the planet, the
evidence suggest that life comes only from pre-existing life
and there is no
observed or verifiable exceptions!
You know that isn't true, because you have been given the example of
protocells formed in the lab during research into it, which have
evolved into more modern cells with nucleic acids over subsequent
generations.
So why do you keep repeating this?
I'm sure that life. one day could possibly be created in a lab by
intelligent men with the necessary ingredients of life. To your
point at one time 4.5 billion years ago the earth was sterile
- no life, so yes, regardless of how it happened, life came from
inanimate matter. You win this round, Chris!

Thanks,
Ron
Christopher A. Lee
2015-10-16 18:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
Don't you believe in some god? Then you believe in abiogenesis because
you believe your god made life from non-life. The very definition of
abiogenesis.
Don't you think, he means that life could not have arisen
by natural processes?
Abiogensis simply means klife from non-life.
However it happened.
But unfortunately for crteationists/fundamentalists/IDiots/etc, none
of the reserarch into it has shown the need of a god.designer/etc.
So they have dishonestly redefined the word so they can pretend it
never happened.
Post by R. Dean
In the history of the planet, the
evidence suggest that life comes only from pre-existing life
and there is no
observed or verifiable exceptions!
You know that isn't true, because you have been given the example of
protocells formed in the lab during research into it, which have
evolved into more modern cells with nucleic acids over subsequent
generations.
So why do you keep repeating this?
I'm sure that life. one day could possibly be created in a lab by
intelligent men with the necessary ingredients of life. To your
point at one time 4.5 billion years ago the earth was sterile
- no life, so yes, regardless of how it happened, life came from
inanimate matter. You win this round, Chris!
Thanks,
Ron
"One day"?

Why do you keep ignoring the results you have been given?

It's not about "winning this round", it's about reality that won't go
away vs unjustified belief in magic and denial of reality.

The following describes what has already been done.

A presentation by the late Sidney Fox on the formation of proto
cells in the lab using simple, natural processes.

They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

An abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team concerning
their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell

Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu

Abstract

Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (“sulfobes”) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM.
Dale
2015-10-16 22:18:20 UTC
Permalink
So what happens to God now that there is no "gap"?
I didn't mention God(s),etc., I said biogenesis

maybe time is a continuum and life has always been around

maybe time is cyclical and life pops up first

even with membranes, a continuation membrane could pop up, if time is
finite in that brane
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Malcolm McMahon
2015-11-07 15:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
no matter the particular debate
there is only one empirical end, biogenesis, life from life
That's how life continues and diversifies
Post by Dale
I have never seen any empirical evidence of abiogenesis, life from no life
You're a little young to have had much chance of observing it, but the
lessons of astronomy tell us that the universe has not always been
capable of supporting life, and so life did not always exist and now
does. That's abiogensis. _We_ are the empirical evidence of abiogensis.
Since there wasn't always life, and now there is, it follows inevitably
that at at least one point in the past, life emerged from non-life.

The details of _how_, where and when that happened, that's a separate
question, and all kinds of interesting speculation is possible. Recent
experimentation suggests that it _could_ have happened, fairly easily,
as the result of random chemical interaction between chemicals which we
know can form spontaneously under the right conditions, but that doesn't
prove that that's how it actually happened.
Post by Dale
even natural selection is subject to biogenesis, life imparts
information to life besides heredity of genes, at least in sentient
life, as far as I have observed
Because evolution is about life continuing and becoming more diverse and
robust. Evolution doesn't begin until you have basic self-replicators,
which is the most basic definition of life.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...