It refutes your claim that life evolved out of dead matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

How did life become 'alive' then?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Life evolved out of chemical reactions. — Possibility

Yes through 'natural selection' which you described as a nemesis.

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?

What do you think that ‘natural selection’ is? — Possibility

trial and error.

Evolution is the process of natural selection.

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?

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.

I meant how does it know what result is desired before the process of trial and error begins?

↪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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I think you're confusing "scientific" with "scientism".

I think you're confusing "scientific" with "scientism". — Metaphysician Undercover

No you are thinking of Scientology.

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.

Right, it's speculation, not science.

Right, it's speculation, not science. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think science can advance without speculation?

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.

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.

Right, it's speculation, not science. — Metaphysician Undercover

No I don't think science can advance without speculation, — Metaphysician Undercover

Understand now?

Yes that are you constantly contradicting yourself.

Very few scientists believe organic life did not evolve on our planet from inorganic chemicals.

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.

Do you understand that? — Metaphysician Undercover

that very few scientists believe organic life did not evolve on our planet from inorganic chemicals.