• ovdtogt
    667
    It refutes your claim that life evolved out of dead matter.Metaphysician Undercover

    How did life become 'alive' then?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k

    Life didn't "come alive". That implies that there was a time when life was not alive, prior to coming alive, and that's contradictory.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    Life didn't "come alive". That implies that there was a time when life was not alive, prior to coming alive, and that's contradictory.Metaphysician Undercover

    No that implies there was once 'no life'. How do you go from 'no life' to life?
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    No? Did life not evolve out of dead matter?ovdtogt

    No, it didn’t. I don’t need to repeat what @Metaphysician Undercover has explained so clearly.

    A nemesis is an inescapable agent of someone’s or something’s downfall. Life cannot cause the downfall of dead matter.

    Life evolved out of chemical reactions.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k

    I don't think it's possible to go from no life to life, that's what I've been saying. Therefore life must be first, and the fact that some people think that the universe went from no life to life simply indicates how little they know about the universe.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    the fact that some people think that the universe went from no life to life simply indicates how little they know about the universe.Metaphysician Undercover

    I didn't know we were discussing religion. I have no problem with that but you could have warned that your first principle is believing there is a living God creator
    I was following the Scientific route. But I can do both.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    Life evolved out of chemical reactions.Possibility

    Yes through 'natural selection' which you described as a nemesis.
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    Yes through 'natural selection' which you described as a nemesis.ovdtogt

    No, not through ‘natural selection’ - that’s the point. What do you think that ‘natural selection’ is?
  • ovdtogt
    667
    What do you think that ‘natural selection’ is?Possibility

    trial and error.

    Evolution is the process of natural selection.
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    What do you think that ‘natural selection’ is?
    — Possibility

    trial and error.
    ovdtogt

    Trial and error is a process of problem solving that implies a desired result. What do you think is this ‘result’, and how does ‘natural selection’ know of this result?
  • ovdtogt
    667
    Google:
    Biological evolution can be considered as a form of trial and error. Random mutations and sexual genetic variations can be viewed as trials and poor reproductive fitness, or lack of improved fitness, as the error.

    how does ‘natural selection’ know of this result?Possibility
    'It' stays 'fit' long enough to replicate.
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    I meant how does it know what result is desired before the process of trial and error begins?
  • ovdtogt
    667
    ↪ovdtogtI meant how does it know what result is desired before the process of trial and error begins?Possibility

    It doesn't. If you get it wrong you die. Only the ones that get it 'right' survive. Survival of the 'fittest'. Trial and error. Error, you dead.
  • Possibility
    2.8k
    It doesn't. If you get it wrong you die.ovdtogt

    Then it isn’t trial and error. It’s more like a limiting factor on a particular process.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    It’s more like a limiting factor on a particular process.Possibility

    it might be limited but it works. Get it right, you live. Get it wrong you die. Simple. Evolution works like a dumb idiot. If he gets it right it is by pure chance.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k
    I was following the Scientific route.ovdtogt

    To say that life came from dead matter is not scientific at all, because it is not supported by any empirical evidence. It's just an illogical speculation.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    To say that life came from dead matter is not scientific at all,Metaphysician Undercover


    It is the scientific belief. Or are you familiar with another scientific hypothesis?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k
    It is the scientific belief.Metaphysician Undercover

    That's false, there's nothing scientific about it at all. If it were scientific you could show me the process.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k

    I think you're confusing "scientific" with "scientism".
  • ovdtogt
    667
    I think you're confusing "scientific" with "scientism".Metaphysician Undercover

    No you are thinking of Scientology.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    That's false, there's nothing scientific about it at all. If it were scientific you could show me the process.Metaphysician Undercover

    You know what an hypothesis is right? A theory for which process has not yet been demonstrated. If they could show you the process it would no longer be an hypothesis but a scientific fact.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k

    Right, it's speculation, not science.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    Right, it's speculation, not science.Metaphysician Undercover

    Do you think science can advance without speculation?
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    Great point. However, notice that relativeness as applies here isn't the concept itself which is universal but to objects being compared to each other. A house may be heavier than a car and a car may be heavier than a person, relatively speaking, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of weight does it?TheMadFool

    I covered this point some time ago in this thread. It is really frustrating that:

    1. People don't read threads that are important.
    2. People forget what they read.
    3. People don't think for themselves.

    My point was that there are qualities that can be ranked by size, such as length, without having a unit length to measure with, such as a yard stick or ruler. If you lay two strings side by side, anyone can tell which is longer, without a ruler.

    But there are qualities that can't be measured or ranked, such as the love of a mother for her child as opposed to another mother's love for her child.

    Complexity can be established in some cases. A car is more complex than a balance scale. Or a set of five equations with five unknowns and being second degree, is more complex than one equation with one unknown and being first degree. But it is invalid to call a hydroelectric complex less or more complex than a human's brain.

    There are qualities that are impossible to intuit, yet measuring instruments exits that can establish the magnitude of the quality. Such, for instance, is radioactive radiation.

    But for crying out loud, why can't you guys accept, that complexity has no measures, and other than in cases of obvious differences, there is no way of telling which is more and which is less complex.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k
    Do you think science can advance without speculation?ovdtogt

    No I don't think science can advance without speculation, but I don't think speculation is science, it's more like metaphysics.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    Right, it's speculation, not science.Metaphysician Undercover

    No I don't think science can advance without speculation,Metaphysician Undercover
  • ovdtogt
    667

    Yes that are you constantly contradicting yourself.

    Very few scientists believe organic life did not evolve on our planet from inorganic chemicals.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k

    Science and metaphysics are distinct. Do you understand that? It appears like you are saying that most scientists have bad metaphysics. That's not surprising, as they are not trained in metaphysics.
  • ovdtogt
    667
    Do you understand that?Metaphysician Undercover

    that very few scientists believe organic life did not evolve on our planet from inorganic chemicals.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.