Posted on 01/07/2006 7:44:07 PM PST by MRMEAN
I assume you're having fun. :)
"Darwin's clerics will be along shortly to tend to your reeducation."
And it won't be a pretty sight.
Dave Barry said it best:
Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.
Full Disclosure: I'd love to read a P.J. O'Rourke piece on the subject.
Cheers!
Playing the role of master debator again? Many religions seem to go on and on. E.g. I haven't seen Mohammed about lately, but we've heard from his adherents as recently as 9-11.
Cheers!
YEC SPOTREP - [yawn]
"See if you can explain it."
UN. Negation. A perfect, symbolic fit for the nihilism of its forebears.
How's that?
It is an irrelevant non answer. How's that?
"It is an irrelevant non answer. How's that?"
Rather cheeky and impertinent, since you deigned to ask, lol.
Think of life as a game. You make a copy you win. If you die before that, you lose.If you don't care to play only those that do will stay in the game and will eventually become the only living things. If you don't change with time then another player that does will sooner or later drive you to extinction. That's why we now have male and female. It allows for variation without mutation, you just mix and match genes that have already won in the test of time. You get new players every generation that have a chance on having a useful combination.
Life from non life. How did that happen? In order to answer that question you first have to define just what life is. My simple definition is self -replicating information. On the basis of this I make the claim that a new form of life has already been created by man, and it was created accidentally at that! ( By accident I mean that making a life form was not part of the intention to create it, it was man made for an entirely different reason but it just so happens it fits my definition of alive ) What is this brand new life form ? The computer virus , and I hope the dirt bags who make these annoyances never figure out how to make one as "clever" as its biological equivalent! As for how nature created the first life form I predict Saturn's moon Titan will someday yield some very important clues.
(I am not making this up) We were just going over Dave Barry on another board. Awesome stuff, I never heard that definition before.
I beg your pardon! If it's almost impossible to define "life," then you can't get hung up on how "life" began, because you have already admitted you don't know what "life" means.
Incidentally, I think I could do a pretty good job articulating why your examples aren't "alive," but I also think that, given the present state of technology, you could make a virus particle from scratch and it would work, and there are some things even more complex than viruses (that is, even deeper into the gray area of life) that could also be made from scratch. A person today, no, but things that some people consider are "alive," today, yes.
"Think of life as a game. You make a copy you win. If you die before that, you lose."
Where does that come from? It matters. Why would a single celled organism go to the trouble to reproduce? Okay, so over the course of millions of years and trials and errors, the thing has RNA that reacts to certain chemical excesses and initiates a complex reaction which results in two cells instead of one.
Why do the two cells band together? They're supposed to compete with each other.
Finally, an IDer's definition of Darwinism. Now I know what those people mean when they use this strange label.
I absolutely accept evolution and I absolutely accept the existence of God. I am not a Darwinist!
Just for fun, let's see what what sort of comments were elicited from the judge's ruling in the Dover case by Michael Behe's "persuasive" testimony:
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"(22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).[emphasis added]
In view of Behe's stunning performance on the witness stand, one is moved to opine that a wooden dummy couldn't have done any worse.
Some people are so high on their own supposed intellect that they are practically insane. I'm speaking of most adherents to the Cult of Evolution.
Shit happens.
"Shit happens."
Unless you're a South Park fan, I don't believe you're ever going to find that a sentient being arises from this process.
Make a single celled organism that is alive, and since you can articulate why my examples aren't alive, articulate why yours is.
And there is still a huge debate over whether virusews are alive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.