Re: Your opinion please.

John Harshman wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
(M)-adman wrote:
Recently an intresting question was posed only to
creationists regarding living matter and non-living matter.

From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there
must have been an element that was added to non living
matter that annimates the non-living matter into a state of
living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this
element into this world. I use the word element as in a
substance, such as one of four substances, earth, air,
fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered
yet that gives non-living matter life.
That's nice. Have you looked at a periodic table lately?
Oddly, there are no boxes for earth, air, fire, or water.
Instead of 4 or 5 elements there are something over a
hundred. Your medieval biology is no better than your
medieval atomic physics.
My reference is straight out of a (modern day) dictionary for
the word "element".
Your modern day dictionary is citing an ancient meaning. Or
didn't you notice? Calling water, etc. an element is just
silly. Calling fire a substance is likewise silly. I agree
that a silly meaning is appropriate for your search for the
elan vital, though.
Semantics. What would you prefer to call X that animates non
living matter?
I think the 5-element scheme is quite appropriate for your
paleolithic musings. Whatever you call it, there is no X. And
this should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about
biology, though it perhaps shouldn't be obvious to you.

Are viruses alive? Are bacteria? If the former are not but the
latter are, what's the essential (in several possible senses)
difference?
You do not know for sure if a virus is alive or nat do you?
It's a matter of definition. Viruses are in the gray area between
life and non-life, which goes to show that there is no "5th
element" at work.
One kook claims science says a virus is not alive, one kook claims
it is, and here you come along and say Viruses are in the gray
area. And yet another kook says there is no such thing as living
or non living matter. You kooks cannot get your story straight on
this it seems
Or perhaps you have no comprehension skills. Some things are alive.
Some aren't. But there is no living or non-living matter. And
whether viruses are alive depends on exactly what you mean by
"alive". They have some attributes we normally associate with life,
but they lack others. No contradictions there.

It seems science does not know and does not have a clear definition
of life.

That's right. And this is true for a great many things that shade into
each other. Science doesn't have a clear definition for "red" either,
as distinct from "orange". Or of species. Many other definitions are
arbitrary, too, like the difference between quartz monzonite and
monzonite.

Next time just compare an apple to a freight truck


A virus replicates. It survives. THAT suggest life.
A virus doesn't replicate. It gets replicated. The term "survives"
begs the question.
incorrect.
A virus invadeds a host for the sole purpose to replicate. Quite
the desire to live eh? But the virus is not intelligent life
because it will kill the host that keeps it alive
A virus has no purpose and no desires. It invades cells, and the
cells then replicate the viral DNA using their own replication
machinery. All this is just chemical reactions. The virus doesn't
replicate itself. Some viruses kill their hosts, others don't.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

A virus shows clear signs of wanting to survive. It will change it's
course and mutate to live. Which is synonymous to you changing
course to avoid an accident. That hardly sounds like a chemical
reaction but rudimentary life on a level not yet understood.

This is pure nonsense. A virus doesn't want anything. A virus doesn't
mutate to live. Viruses can't help mutating, and they have no control
over their mutation. And you are presenting here a garbled account of
natural selection, which filters the random mutations of viruses to
preserve any that happen to increase the reproductive success of the
virus that has it relative to the rest of the viral population. This
process is understood quite well, and it has nothing to do with me
changing course to avoid an accident. The proper analogy would be if
there were billions of me all driving in random directions; the ones
that happened not to get into accidents would be preserved.

This sounds crazy. But the entire theory of evolution sounds cooked up in a
pot of snakes


You cannot even offer an hypothesis for life.
And you cannot even be coherent.
that would be you

Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is,
how it compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged
from non-living matter?
No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct
from non-living matter. Life is a property of certain
complex systems that maintain themselves far outside
chemical equilibrium by running energy through the system.
It's a process, not a condition of matter.
uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can
achieve thought, emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn.
(except in your case of course)
Yes, I do believe that, and it should be obvious to anyone who
knows anything about biology. There is no mysterious life
principle. Life is a product of physical processes. Vitalism
died in the 19th century.
Nonsense. But for shitz-n-gigglez, where did this process
begin? What or who orginated the pathways? Why can science not
duplicate this process? What is the name of the process? Can
it be observed without matter?
1. On earth, presumably.
Presumption 1
Did you have another idea?
you gave a location.
Do you disagree about the location?

I asked for who or what orginated the pathways
No, you asked "where did this process begin?" Do you remember doing
that? If not, just look above and see where you did it.

Tomato, toMAto. The processes need a pathway start point as well as
an origin. I am sure you understood.

When you're being incoherent, it's hard to understand you. A start
point as well as an origin? There's a difference?

of course there is a difference.


2. I don't know, depending on which pathways you're talking
about. excuse 1
3. Give it a few years, depending on what you mean by
duplicating the process.
presunption 2

4. Life, as I've said already.
presumption 3

5. Not that we know of.
excuse 2

So far, no home run. It is doubtful you can get to first base.
You cannot even run
And you are boring.
ah, because you have nothing to reply with.
You asked, I answered. What reply is necessary?

And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828,
with the in vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it
call it's beaker "mommie"?
No. What it showed is that organic compounds are no more
special than inorganic compounds. Most life doesn't think and
feel or call anything "mommie". And I can get replication in
a test tube just by mixing and heating a few molecules of the
right sort (we call it PCR). You are very confused.
That would be you. Very confused. You are not describing life.
You are describing a chemical reaction.
Life is a set of chemical reactions. Where have you been for the
past hundred-plus years?
And you offer an abundence of proof that says i am wrong. NOT!
But, again, just for shitz-n-gigglez, WHY has the rest of the
world not bought this idea you present that is "hundred-plus
years" years old? Because it is bull***. THATS why.
Well, that was a powerful argument.
Truth usually is
I have to remember that irony is lost on creationists. Sorry. What I
meant to say is "That was no argument at all." First, the educated
portion of the world does buy that idea. Ignorant people may not,
but they're ignorant, after all. A lot of people, probably the
majority, don't know that the earth goes around the sun. Should we
abandon that one too?

Some of the smartest people can be dumb as rocks. You have not
discovered this fact of life yet; obviously.

Which fact of life? And what makes you think it's a fact?

you are trolling now


Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second
question is meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how
life emerged. But that's a separate question from this
primitive vitalism you espouse.
IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT,
life can be considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien
movie.
Whenever you start a sentence with "IOW", I know it's going to
be a nonsensical strawman.
Ok, please define the human type of life.
Whenever you start a sentence, I know it's going to be
nonsensical, and often incoherent, as that one was. You try
defining it so I have some notion of what you were trying to
say. I wouldn't think the human type of life was distinct from
the regular type.
So you cannot define human life.

Why is that?
Because you're incoherent, and I can't tell what you are trying to
ask me to do.
It was not me that gave a location for a question not asked
Yes, but it was you that asked for a location and then forgot you
had. What are you trying to do?

I asked above "please define the human type of life"

Yes, and I can't do that because I have no idea what you mean by it.
There is no human type of life, as distinct from life. Humans have
certain differences from other species, but that's another matter
entirely.

so don't answer then


You have yet to anything, but be sarcastic.

As i said earlier: IOW you really do not know if anything is alive
or not.

Sure I do. I can tell you that for most things. There are a few (like
viruses) where it's hard to say. But a rabbit is alive; cheese isn't.
See?

--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:

·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^


My List of confirmed liars
1) J.J. O'Shea

Don't fret!! YOU can be added to the list too!

.

Loading