17 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidThe topic is ideology. You've found a 'scientist' who believes the same neo - primitive mythology as do you, that your god created everything, that snakes can talk, and so on, and science and mythology cannot coexist in the same thought process. Science is logical, belief in mythology is illogical, there can be no meeting between the two. You cannot even begin to discuss chemical or biological processes sensibly until you completely remove supernatural influences from the discussion, that is something which your hard - wired inherited beliefs will not allow you to understand. Take it to the 'I'm Still Living in the Dark Ages' forum, and leave the Science Forum to people who want to discuss science.
I am interested in the topic you with ideology. You can’t seem to talk about anything else, I asking you for a simple answer mindlessness or mind, what is it you see that says mindlessness is responsible? It takes a mind to put material together to do specific functions and as I add with error checking, how does mindlessness do that?
Yet religious beliefs not this concern you.
18 Jun 23
@indonesia-phil saidI'm not asking you anything about primitive mythology, you, not I keep bringing up religion when the questions I'm asking are very simple, but you refuse to engage. No faith in science, or logic for your own belief system?
The topic is ideology. You've found a 'scientist' who believes the same neo - primitive mythology as do you, that your god created everything, that snakes can talk, and so on, and science and mythology cannot coexist in the same thought process. Science is logical, belief in mythology is illogical, there can be no meeting between the two. You cannot even begin to discu ...[text shortened]... l Living in the Dark Ages' forum, and leave the Science Forum to people who want to discuss science.
So instead, you keep going back to topics best suited for the Spiritual forum, why is it that, you know you cannot answer, so you attempt to muck up the conversation to avoid having to publish answers you know you cannot defend, using only logic, science, or anything else?
Can you justify mindlessness as the driving force for life, yes, no, why?
18 Jun 23
@sonhouse saidIt doesn't matter what you think of Christianity, you can take that to the Spiritual forum if you want to talk about that! It doesn't matter if you think I'm duped by religion, you can take the Spiritual forum.
@KellyJay
I hate to point this out but Christianity IS ancient mythology.
You just happen to be one of the billions of those duped by organized religion.
The question is simple, yet none of you without exception can offer up any reasons to accept mindlessness could do all the things we see in life. You are good at simply changing the subject, attacking people, just not answering questions. How do you do science without answering or even offering up possible answers to all of the questions that come up?
To ask questions, to learn, to understand, that is what is supposed to happen here is it not, not drag in religion but you do drag it in when you don't like the questions or worse the answers to some questions?
You do have reasons for accepting mindlessness can do all the things we see in life right, or you don't want to admit you know it is not adequate you are just not willing to say so.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121429
18 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidIncorrect.
The question is simple, yet none of you without exception can offer up any reasons to accept mindlessness could do all the things we see in life.
I have TWICE offered you a link to a pubmed article which examines and discusses the origins of life on earth. Did you read any of it either time?
18 Jun 23
4 edits
@kellyjay said"All the things we see in life" is a different question from the origins of life. The origins of life are chemical; this question has been answered by several posters here; you just don't accept that answer.
It doesn't matter what you think of Christianity, you can take that to the Spiritual forum if you want to talk about that! It doesn't matter if you think I'm duped by religion, you can take the Spiritual forum.
The question is simple, yet none of you without exception can offer up any reasons to accept mindlessness could do all the things we see in life. You ar ...[text shortened]... fe right, or you don't want to admit you know it is not adequate you are just not willing to say so.
"All of the things we see in life" is something else entirely, and does indeed involve minds, namely our minds (since we are the ones who see all of the things we see in life); minds which evolved from more primitive life forms which do not exhibit the behaviour we call "mindful."
In order to continue this discussion, I think we really have to clarify one fundamental point:
1. Do you accept that primitive life forms, much simpler than bacteria, appeared first, and that more complicated life forms appeared later? Much later. Hundreds of millions of years later. By whatever process (whether evolution or some other).
2. Or do you hold to the biblical account, that all life forms, from extremely primitive to mindful ones, appeared at the same time (give or take a few hours) just as they are now, fully formed?
I would appreciate a clear affirmation of either 1. or 2.
@moonbus saidWell outstanding, please point me to the answers that have been answered by several posters here already! Hopefully this isn't just another dodge because you will not.
"All the things we see in life" is a different question from the origins of life. The origins of life are chemical; this question has been answered by several posters here; you just don't accept that answer.
"All of the things we see in life" is something else entirely, and does indeed involve minds, namely our minds (since we are the ones who see all of the ...[text shortened]... e same time (give or take a few hours)?
I would appreciate a clear affirmation of either 1. or 2.
Concerning clearing up points, why don't you clear up your statements about other chemists saying Dr. Tour is wrong by pointing to statements or links where they address the points you have said he is wrong about?
You could also show how feedback loops are not in biological systems and how enzymes are not part of those as well.
I'm not worried about what life appeared before another life, we have simple lifeforms living today, does that mean they showed up before the more complex lifeforms in the distant past, exactly how does that work if simple comes before more complex? If you are going to insist that one must come before the other why do we see them all at the same time now? If they show up now at the same time, how do you know one came before the other at some other time if that is all we are going on?
Biblical account questions, take the Spiritual forum.
I would appreciate a clear affirmation of those things I have been asking you for some time now.
18 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidOh dear, you really aren't getting this at all, are you. Still, at least you now concede that primitive mythology and religion are one and the same thing, which is progress, I suppose.
I'm not asking you anything about primitive mythology, you, not I keep bringing up religion when the questions I'm asking are very simple, but you refuse to engage. No faith in science, or logic for your own belief system?
So instead, you keep going back to topics best suited for the Spiritual forum, why is it that, you know you cannot answer, so you attempt to muck up th ...[text shortened]... ence, or anything else?
Can you justify mindlessness as the driving force for life, yes, no, why?
18 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidVery primitive life forms are still here now only if they are still adapted to the current conditions. We know that conditions on Earth were, in the very distant past, not suitable for mammalian life forms. The fossil record is very clear, that primitive multi-cellular life forms appeared before mammals, by many millions of years.
Well outstanding, please point me to the answers that have been answered by several posters here already! Hopefully this isn't just another dodge because you will not.
Concerning clearing up points, why don't you clear up your statements about other chemists saying Dr. Tour is wrong by pointing to statements or links where they address the points you have said he is wron ...[text shortened]...
I would appreciate a clear affirmation of those things I have been asking you for some time now.
But you don’t accept that, do you? You think the universe is only a few thousand years old, don’t you? Given that you don’t accept deep time, I can understand why mindless processes don’t seem to you to have any explanatory traction.
18 Jun 23
@indonesia-phil saidI'm getting that nothing even remotely has been said concerning mindlessness and mind but a lot of jabber about mythology and religion. You'd think with the gusto you have about knowing what is and isn't real you'd be able to at least at a minimum, come up with something that could explain how a mindless process could build what we see in life.
Oh dear, you really aren't getting this at all, are you. Still, at least you now concede that primitive mythology and religion are one and the same thing, which is progress, I suppose.
18 Jun 23
@moonbus saidNothing about primitive lifeforms lets you off the hook on how they were constructed, the delta between the two does not explain away how a mindless process could produce either. Your problem is primitive single-cell, or multi-cellular life both are equally problematic, but go on give it your best shot, and explain how a mindless process could do it.
Very primitive life forms are still here now only if they are still adapted to the current conditions. We know that conditions on Earth were, in the very distant past, not suitable for mammalian life forms. The fossil record is very clear, that primitive multi-cellular life forms appeared before mammals, by many millions of years.
But you don’t accept that, do you? You thi ...[text shortened]... ep time, I can understand why mindless processes don’t seem to you to have any explanatory traction.
19 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidFirst of all, living organisms are not “constructed.” You’re begging the question there. Airplanes are designed and then constructed.
Nothing about primitive lifeforms lets you off the hook on how they were constructed, the delta between the two does not explain away how a mindless process could produce either. Your problem is primitive single-cell, or multi-cellular life both are equally problematic, but go on give it your best shot, and explain how a mindless process could do it.
Secondly, explain how a mindless process could do what? Are you asking about the origin of very primitive life, more primitive than bacteria? Or are you asking how a mindless process can account for all the life forms we see today? I rather suspect you are confusing the two, as you have done in previous threads.
PS It matters which question you want answered, whether the origin of very primitive life, or the diversity of "all the life we see now", because the answers are different.
It also matters how you answer my previous question, whether you accept that primitive life forms appeared first, and complex life forms appeared much later, or whether you believe that all life forms we see now appeared at the same time (give or take a few hours), because the answers are different, depending on what time scale you accept. Time matters.
19 Jun 23
@moonbus saidLiving organisms are not constructed, and your evidence and reasoning behind that statement is you don’t believe so due to, what? All the evidence you have managed to bring up for consideration that shows a mindless process is responsible, if so I believe you forgot to show why you believe that! If you don’t want to say believe, it is evidence based, you have not brought any of that either.
First of all, living organisms are not “constructed.” You’re begging the question there. Airplanes are designed and then constructed.
Secondly, explain how a mindless process could do what? Are you asking about the origin of very primitive life, more primitive than bacteria? Or are you asking how a mindless process can account for all the life forms we see today? I rather suspect you are confusing the two, as you have done in previous threads.
Why do you keep coming back with nothing?
19 Jun 23
@moonbus saidNo, it doesn’t matter you are being asked a very simple question suggesting primitive is either easier or harder isn’t true. Can mindlessness do all we we?
PS It matters which question you want answered, whether the origin of very primitive life, or the diversity of "all the life we see now", because the answers are different.
It also matters how you answer my previous question, whether you accept that primitive life forms appeared first, and complex life forms appeared much later, or whether you believe that all life forms ...[text shortened]... ew hours), because the answers are different, depending on what time scale you accept. Time matters.