Life from Life
On July 3rd, 1998, I introduced
myself to the newsgroup talk.origins with the following provocative
argument: "Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical
to assume that living organisms have their origin in lifeless
matter. That’s the superstition of our time."
My position was apparently
so bewildering that several netizens at talk.origins believed
I was trolling. In those days, I didn't know what a cybertroll
was, so I thought they were referring to the very mythology they
were fighting so vehemently against with natural science and
rational logic as weapons. After a while, they became curious
about the sources of my notions, so I tried to introduce Rudolf
Steiner and anthroposophical literature.
"Talk.origins is a
Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological
and physical origins," their website tells us. "Most
discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution
controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin
of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology."
This means that talk.origins
is primarily a battle zone between materialistic Darwinists on
the one hand, and fundamentalist creationists on the other. Assuming
a middle position is bound to create confusion in these circles,
although later on, I joined the Darwinist sport of fundy-bashing
with threads like "Noah's Insects." This is why my
initial post was to a large extent addressed to Biblical creationists,
although only the Darwinists answered my challenge.
Anyway, the initial thread,
entitled "life from life," ended up counting no less
than 164 posts. It was all about little me defending the notion
of an alive, theistic origin of existence against an army of
sharp science freaks who fought for an inorganic origin of life
tooth and nail. I don't feel that I lost this war, but I didn't
influence any opponents' opinions, so it looks like a standoff,
or a draw. Or what does the reader think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve come
to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
Now for the real fun: Creationists and fundies,
I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us to galaxies
that are hundreds of millions of light years away. This means
that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds of millions
of years before it reached earth, so when we look into the telescope,
we are actually gazing hundreds of millions of years into the
past.
If the universe is as young as creationists
not only wish that it was, but insist that it is, the stars and
the galaxies in question would not have been visible from earth
because the light would still be in transit. It would be interesting
to get a creationist’s explanation for the fact that we
in fact can look hundreds of million years into the past like
that.
The way I understand it, the creationists
believe that the entire material universe came into being six
thousand years ago or a little more, and that absolutely everythinjg
that exists was manifested out of nothing during the course of
six or seven days and nights. One problem with that is that a
day and a night, i.e. a 24-hour period, is made possible by the
mutual movements of the earth, the moon, and the sun. This condition
does not exist before the third "day" in the first
chapter of Genesis. This means that the first two "days"
"nights" cannot have been 24-hour periods, but must
refer to something else. The Hebrew word "yom", which
is translated as "day", would perhaps be more accurately
translated as "time spirit" - at least for us spiritual
evolutionists.
I understand that "evolution" is
sometimes called "evilution" by creationists because
evolution or evilution was invented by Satan in order to make
man immoral. Thinking evilution or evolution immoralizes man
and increases his sinfulness, right?
The way I see it, the world would have been
standing still without evolution, without metamorphosis. Plants
wouldn’t grow, and a caterpillar would never become a butterfly.
Man would still have been sitting in that banana tree, looking
like a monkey and eating the forbidden fruit (the cursed banana
that made monkeys out of Adam and Eve. Eve couldn’t resist
it because it looked even more phallic than the serpent, and
that’s how sexual sin came into the world.)
So according to the creationists, everything
came into existence in one week six thousand years ago - like
Bishop Usher once figured out - and since then, everything has
been standing still, except that people have been born and died,
and Jesus has come and gone and is coming back soon to put an
end to everything that has just been standing there. Right?
Creationists must have something to say -
So Fundies, fundies - come out and play!
Tarjei Straume
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Scharle
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Sorry, I have to rate your attempt at trolling
as "Zero Billygoats".
Try a less discriminating group.
--
Tom Scharle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wade Hines
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can
give birth to cats? That looks extraordinarily impossible to
me, odds of worse than one in 10^100 or so.
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth, so when we look
into the telescope, we are actually gazing hundreds of millions
of years into the past.
You will have fun here. In particular because
your language is so very imprecise that you will gather friends
and foes like flies to __it. The problem you will face, is that
you will gather the wrong sorts of friends. They will be zealots
who choose to hear what they want from your happy talk.
Let me ask you a philosophical question. Does
the past exist?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Louann Miller
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
(ringing both creationist and evolutionary
doorbells and running away.)
I'm sorry. One of the first requirements of
the MST3K style of humor is that the person doing the mocking
must be either smarter or funnier than the original material.
Ideally, both.
Have a nice life.
--
Our ISP is cyberramp.net -- you know the routine...
For media based fan fiction check out
http://www.cyberramp.net/~millers/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Louann Miller wrote:
(ringing both creationist and evolutionary
doorbells and running away.)
Wrong. Ringing both doorbells and waiting
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Honus
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Louann Miller wrote:
(ringing both creationist and evolutionary
doorbells and running away.)
Wrong. Ringing both doorbells and waiting
While you're doing that, why don't you try
holding your breath?
--
Remove NOSPAM from my address to reply by e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curt Tabor
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth
Why? If God can POOF! life into existence,
why can't he also POOF! light waves into existence? If life needs
no source but God, why does light?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Curt Tabor wrote:
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth
Why? If God can POOF! life into existence,
why can't he also POOF! light waves into existence? If life needs
no source but God, why does light?
You’ll have to ask a creationist about
that.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from living
beings.
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
It is a simple piece of logic that backs up
all religions, plus occultism, theosophy, anthroposohy (spiritual
science).
Now for the real fun: Creationists and
fundies, I hope you come out to play. A telescope can take us
to galaxies that are hundreds of millions of light years away.
This means that the light from those stars had to travel hundreds
of millions of years before it reached earth, so when we look
into the telescope, we are actually gazing hundreds of millions
of years into the past.
You will have fun here. In particular because
your language is so veryimprecise that you will gather friends
and foes like flies to __it. The problem you will face, is that
you will gather the wrong sorts of friends. They will be zealots
who choose to hear what they want from your happy talk.
So be it.
Let me ask you a philosophical question.
Does the past exist?
I would say yes, but perhaps that’s subjective?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your proof?
your evidence?
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
It is a simple piece of logic that backs
up all religions, plus occultism, theosophy, anthroposohy (spiritual
science).
except that the logic fails because you said
its IMPOSSIBLE for life to have formed from non life.
that means you must know HOW it DID form.
ok, tell us!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
An infant comes from its parents. A plant
comes from its seed. All of living nature is the proof. Organic
organisms take nutrition from living, organic matter to build
up their forms.
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
It is a simple piece of logic that backs
up all religions, plus occultism, theosophy, anthroposohy (spiritual
science).
except that the logic fails because you
said its IMPOSSIBLE for life to have formed from non life.
I prefer to put it this way: Non-life also
has its origin in life, whence everything originates.
that means you must know HOW it DID form.
If that be the premise, it should be equally
valid for all cosmologies, including yours.
ok, tell us!!
That’s quite a task, but I’ll start
browsing my bookshelves.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
An infant comes from its parents. A plant
comes from its seed. All of living nature is the proof.
Sorry, you seem to be using a radically different
meaning of the word _proof_ than science does. In fact, proof
doesn;t exist in science (only in axiomatic systems can one prove
anything). In science, a future observation may always refute
a notion. No matter how much evidence we gather to support an
idea, one counterexample can eliminate it entirely. Look to Newtonian
gravity for an example. That in present conditions we have not
observed a living organism arise from non-living matter (if you
can somehow reliably define the boundary between the two. I can't;
can you? (NB: This is a serious non-rhetorical question that
I want an answer to)) does not prove that life cannot arise from
non-life, especially when we have evidence that conditions in
the past were very different.
Organic organisms take nutrition from living,
organic matter to build up their forms.
Plants use energy from the sun, carbon dioxide
from whatever (not necessarily human beings, any carbon dioxide
will do), and minerals and other inorganic nutrients from soil.
Forms of bacteria take sustenance and nutrition from inorganic
(in both the "non-living" and "non-carbon"
sense of the term) materials near undersea vents. Life forms
do it all the time. Why can't a self-replicating chemical system
arive from non-living matter? I can't think of a good reason.
Can you? (NB: Again, a non-rhetorical question.)
So perhaps you have a more discrete beginning
you'ld like to put forward prior to discussing the logic of abiogenesis.
Life comes from life looks like exceedingly sloppy religion.
It is a simple piece of logic that backs
up all religions, plus occultism, theosophy, anthroposohy (spiritual
science).
except that the logic fails because you
said its IMPOSSIBLE for life to have formed from non life.
I prefer to put it this way: Non-life also
has its origin in life, whence everything originates.
Everything? Are you quite sure that you realize
the scope of that claim? Can we have some evidence?
that means you must know HOW it DID form.
If that be the premise, it should be equally
valid for all cosmologies, including yours.
No. We have some ideas, but it is still a
work in progress. However, we have no faith in that life did
arise from non-life. We only have evidence which points towards
it. We do not claim that it absolutely had to happen that way
or that other ways are categorically false. You claim that it
absolutely could not happen that way. You must show some evidence.
ok, tell us!!
That’s quite a task, but I’ll
start browsing my bookshelves.
It would be nice to get some references from
you.
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 13:55:12 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
An infant comes from its parents. A plant
comes from its seed. All of living nature is the proof. Organic
organisms take nutrition from living, organic matter to build
up their forms.
you are attempting to generalize from current
conditions to the beginning of life on earth. there were few
infants on earth 4.5 billion yrs ago. but you say you know HOW
life started. all i asked was for you to state your evidence,
not to tell us what is the current temperature outside your window.
except that the logic fails because you
said its IMPOSSIBLE for life to have formed from non life.
I prefer to put it this way: Non-life also
has its origin in life, whence everything originates.
again, i say prove it. we know that there
are planets with no life. we find evidence that the earth itself
was once lifeless. if this is the case then what happened to
the life that caused the earth to become lifeless?
you are building supposition on top of supposition
with NO evidence whatsoever.
that means you must know HOW it DID form.
If that be the premise, it should be equally
valid for all cosmologies, including yours.
ok, tell us!!
That’s quite a task, but I’ll
start browsing my bookshelves.
fine. until you pose evidence your statement
that all life comes from life is meaningless.
and you just admitted it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wade Hines
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
Wade Hines wrote:
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic. For instance,
are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
Here it comes.
Let's look at Tarjei's "logic".
Life comes from life is a statement like peach
trees come from peach pits.
In as much as they say, they are correct observations.
This does not say that new peach trees *only*
arise from peach tree pits.
The logic presented is so superficially flawed
that people go right past it to the baggage which is usually
associated with it.
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Wade Hines wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs
can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
Here it comes.
Let's look at Tarjei's "logic".
Life comes from life is a statement like peach trees come from
peach pits.
In as much as they say, they are correct observations.
This does not say that new peach trees *only* arise from peach
tree pits.
The logic presented is so superficially flawed that people go
right past it to the baggage which is usually associated with
it.
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish logic for why life
*only* arises from life, though it seems to be the point he wishes
he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
Wade Hines wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
This "life comes from life" things
doesn't look like a good beginning for claims of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs
can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings proceed from
living beings.
and you know this how, WRT origins? your
proof? your evidence?
Here it comes.
Let's look at Tarjei's "logic".
Life comes from life is a statement like peach trees come from
peach pits.
In as much as they say, they are correct observations.
This does not say that new peach trees *only* arise from peach
tree pits.
The logic presented is so superficially flawed that people go
right past it to the baggage which is usually associated with
it.
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish logic for why life
*only* arises from life, though it seems to be the point he wishes
he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven.
Then why do you insist on making other ones?
We know it can't be disproven. You are saying nothing new in
this regard.
We also know that the idea that you are all
simply fevered dreams in my imagination also cannot be disproven.
It's simply an idea which has no evidence for it.
The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
That what you propose cannot be disproven?
Rational logic would say that we cannot disprove what you propose.
Or are you referring to another point which you are making?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
Tarjei
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
If you quote me on that, I’ll respond
to it.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
If you quote me on that, I’ll respond
to it.
No. Life did not come
from nothing. Life did not come from the lifeless. Life comes
from life.
Tarjei
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 17:15:48 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
If you quote me on that, I’ll respond
to it.
Tarjei
alright. here you go:
From: Tarjei Straume
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: life from life
Date: 3 Jul 1998 11:44:35 -0400
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new
here, I’ve come to play, and I’m looking forward to
some fun.
First off, I’ll declare
my disagreement with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic
evolution. Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical
to assume that living organisms have their origin in lifeless
matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
This "life comes from
life" things doesn't look like a good beginning for claims
of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings
proceed from living beings.
AND:
From: Tarjei Straume
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: life from life
Date: 3 Jul 1998 08:48:01 -0400
First off, I’ll declare
my disagreement with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic
evolution. Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical
to assume that living organisms have their origin in lifeless
matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
have fun!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 17:15:48 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Wade Hines wrote:
Tarjei has not even attempted to establish
logic for why life *only* arises from life, though it seems to
be the point he wishes he could make.
The only point I wish to make is that this
cannot be disproven. The recognition of the statement concerned
requires, however, religiously oriented powers of cognition *in
addition to* rational logic.
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
If you quote me on that, I’ll respond
to it.
Tarjei
alright. here you go:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
First off, I’ll declare
my disagreement with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic
evolution. Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical
to assume that living organisms have their origin in lifeless
matter. That’s the superstition of our time.
I declare my opinion and my belief and how
it stands in oppposition to the
materialistic one. I find their assumption that life comes from
llifeless matter
illogical. Not one word about anything being "impossible
to prove".
This "life comes from
life" things doesn't look like a good beginning for claims
of logic.
For instance, are you saying that dogs can give birth to cats?
No. Only that living beings
proceed from living beings.
Again, nothing about proofs or their impossibilities.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 18:54:40 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
that is not what you said. you said originally
that it was impossible. since the evidence indicates the earth
did not contain life at one point, and now does, your statement
was wrong
I declare my opinion and my belief and
how it stands in oppposition to the materialistic one. I find
their assumption that life comes from llifeless matter illogical.
Not one word about anything being "impossible to prove".
the materialistic one has zip to do with science.
many scientist have religious beliefs. so in addition to your
disproven idea that life always comes from life, you now need
to prove that materialism is a requisite for science.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard hershey
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve come to play, and I’m
looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes
from life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living
organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s the
superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under current conditions,
life comes from life." Much of what science does is set
the conditions under which certain statements are true. What
alternative do you propose instead of life coming from something
lifeless at some point in the history of the universe? That life
always existed (even before the big bang)? The existing evidence
tends to refute that possibility. That rather than coming from
lifeless matter life came from nothing at all and is therefore
composed of nothing at all? The existing evidence tends to refute
that possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come
from lifeless material at some point in history. Whether one
thinks that that was an unplanned, accidental, purely materialistic
event or one directed in some manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond
the scope of science, which can only look at the material naturalistic
aspects of the process.
Why cannot creationists even think through
the logic of the words they use?
[snip remainder of troll]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
OK folks, I’m new here, I’ve
come to play, and I’m looking forward to some fun.
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement with the atheists
who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution. Life comes
from life, and it is completely illogical to assume that living
organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s the
superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life did
not come from the lifeless. Life
comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
Why cannot creationists even think through
the logic of the words they use?
I’m waiting for them to find out.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard hershey
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Exactly how do you propose life as we know
it to exist in the conditions of the Big Bang when life as we
know it cannot even exist in the much milder conditons of molten
lava on the earth or the surface of the sun? Why is there no
evidence of life earlier than 3.5 billion years before the present
on this planet? Like I said, the existing evidence (wrt the conditions
in which all known forms of life exist) tends to rule out this
possibility.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
As opposed to your alternative of life (as
we know it) existing under the conditions of the Big Bang? You
are aware that carbon (much less the organocabon molecules of
life) did not exist under those conditions? At least standard
abiogenesis does not require the invention of new forms of life
that are rather ethereal, but only the invention of life as we
know it.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
What is beyond science is whether the materialistic process of
abiogenesis was or was not directed by a deity. What is not beyond
science is placing limits and conditions and sites under which
this materialistic process occurred. Life as we know it does
not exist under conditions which would prevail in the Big Bang.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing, but has a material
basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life comes from
life" and assume that that prevails under all conditions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Exactly how do you propose life as we know it to exist in the
conditions of the Big Bang when life as we know it cannot even
exist in the much milder conditons of molten lava on the earth
or the surface of the sun? Why is there no evidence of life earlier
than 3.5 billion years before the present on this planet?
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
Like I said, the existing evidence (wrt
the conditions in which all known forms of life exist) tends
to rule out this possibility.
Evidence proves or disproves. Tendencies are
something else, and in this case,
unspecified.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
As opposed to your alternative of life
(as we know it) existing under the conditions of the Big Bang?
You are aware that carbon (much less the organocabon molecules
of life) did not exist under those conditions? At least standard
abiogenesis does not require the invention of new forms of life
that are rather ethereal, but only the invention of life as we
know it.
Perhaps we still don’t know life, even
within the confines of our own present
earth condition.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
What is beyond science is whether the materialistic
process of abiogenesis was or was not directed by a deity.
When phrased like this, the only alternative
to a material, lifeless, inorganic origin of organic cells would
be a "deity dictator" taken from the theology of organized
religion - in this case, a monotheistic religion. What I am implying
is that perhaps a more highly evolved species beyond the confines
of our physical senses may be the origin of "lower species"
including homo sapiens. And perhaps these again have their origin
elsewhere - still within the realm of living beings.
What is not beyond science is placing limits
and conditions and sites under which this materialistic process
occurred. Life as we know it does not exist under conditions
which would prevail in the Big Bang.
"Life conditions in the Big Bang"
is a thought experiment, nothing else.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven or
disproven by scientific means. It has to do with the attitude
with which one conducts one’s research, and which affects
one’s theories and hypotheses.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Scharle
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting
statements.
--
Tom Scharle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific
evidence can prove or disprove anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Scharle
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting
up a criterion of proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the
statement that you made. Can you prove that statement?
--
Tom Scharle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if we
can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roy.altholz
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote....
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Tarjei
Some things can be know with more certanty
than others, and more credibly.
--
Boikat
"Facts are stupid things."
-- Ronald Reagan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Scharle
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting
up a criterion of proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the
statement that you made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
"Evidence needs to be empirical."
Can you prove that? (Presumably, you have
some empirical proof of it?)
"...NOTHING can be proven or known with
certainty..."
Can you prove that?
Really low grade attempts.
Most creationists can do better than that.
--
Tom Scharle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Science already does this. We know very well
that nothing can be proven or disproven with absolute certainty.
You are preaching to the choir. However, you then make statements
that imply that *you* are abolsutely certain. E.g.
from <359CFBF2.35CD135E@online.no>:
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
You make an absolute statement without a hint
of knowing that you could be wrong or even inaccurate. In addition,
you give no evidence to support your statement. If you want the
evidence we have for abiogenesis or the evidence we have that
supports what we suppose the conditions of Earth 3.5 bya, you
can search in the scientific journals for that evidence. It isn't
hard. Can you direct me to the evidence which supports your ideas?
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Science already does this. We know very
well that nothing can be proven or disproven with absolute certainty.
You are preaching to the choir. However, you then make statements
that imply that *you* are abolsutely certain. E.g. from <359CFBF2.35CD135E@online.no>:
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
You make an absolute statement without
a hint of knowing that you could be wrong or even inaccurate.
It was partially intended as a provocation
as well as a declaration of opinion.
In addition, you give no evidence to support
your statement.
I have pointed to indications just like you
have.
If you want the evidence we have for abiogenesis
or the evidence we have that supports what we suppose the conditions
of Earth 3.5 bya, you can search in the scientific journals for
that evidence. It isn't hard. Can you direct me to the evidence
which supports your ideas?
If you visit my home page by the link below
and scroll down, you’ll find several links to electronic
bookstores that carry the literature I have been reading for
decades. If you search those booklists for science, it should
be possible to find the particular scientific field you may be
looking for. I especially recommend Georg Unger, who used to
be the head of the Department of Mathematics and Astronomy at
the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
Robert Kern wrote:
Tarjei Straume says...
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
Thomas Scharle wrote:
Tarjei Straume writes:
[...snip...]
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
[...snip...]
I am somewhat fond of these self-refuting statements.
My above statement would have been "self-refuting"
if I had claimed to prove or disprove something that happened
billions of years ago. But I haven’t. So, on what basis
do you find my statement self-refuting?
You know, you probably are that unawares,
aren't you?
The lower grade of troll-wannabes often are.
Let's start of simply, then. You're setting up a criterion of
proof/disproof. Apply that criterion to the statement that you
made. Can you prove that statement?
Evidence needs to be empirical. Even if
we can look back in time into distant galaxies by means of telescopes,
it is not possible to do the same with our own solar system.
I am not seeking to prove something, but to establish that my
spiritual-religious theory of evolution cannot be disproven.
There is a vital difference. If we end up by concluding that
NOTHING can be proven or known with certainty, I have made my
point.
Science already does this. We know very
well that nothing can be proven or disproven with absolute certainty.
You are preaching to the choir. However, you then make statements
that imply that *you* are abolsutely certain. E.g. from <359CFBF2.35CD135E@online.no>:
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
You make an absolute statement without
a hint of knowing that you could be wrong or even inaccurate.
It was partially intended as a provocation
as well as a declaration of opinion.
So you claim to be dishonest? Altering what
you say or the manner in which you say it to provoke a desired
response is dishonest. If it is not exactly what you believe,
do not say it. The question now: will you retract your claim?
In fact, since you have been so unclear by
clouding what you say with ulterior motives, could you please
give an exposition of what you believe, clearly and without alteration?
In addition, you give no evidence to support
your statement.
I have pointed to indications just like
you have.
I must have missed them, though I have read
everything you have posted here. I have seen you cite no evidence
that supports what you say.
If you want the evidence we have for abiogenesis
or the evidence we have that supports what we suppose the conditions
of Earth 3.5 bya, you can search in the scientific journals for
that evidence. It isn't hard. Can you direct me to the evidence
which supports your ideas?
If you visit my home page by the link below
and scroll down, you’ll find several links to electronic
bookstores that carry the literature I have been reading for
decades. If you search those booklists for science, it should
be possible to find the particular scientific field you may be
looking for. I especially recommend Georg Unger, who used to
be the head of the Department of Mathematics and Astronomy at
the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland.
I checked Anthropress and the Steiner College
bookstore. From what I saw (which is only the descriptions of
the books, I know, but no one bothered to place anything on the
web that gives anything substantial) is that, first there was
nothing that supported your idea (ethereal beings in Sol implanting
life onto Earth) and nothing that appears to contain evidence,
merely explanations of philosophies. If you can post some evidence
(i.e. observations that can be independently confirmed) then
we might get somewhere.
While you're at it, post what you really believe.
I hate to base everything that I say on what you *appear* to
believe.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"mail" to reply or use| - Richard Harter
the Reply-to header. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove the
old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you are
wrong.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
and, again, your statement that life comes
from life is a failure
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means. I
then why did you say it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove
the old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you
are wrong.
You cannot prove how conditions were billions
of years ago. One can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
I humbly fail to see my failure.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
and, again, your statement that life comes
from life is a failure
Now THAT is unscientific dogmatism.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means.
then why did you say it?
Because the life coming from life is one of
the basic principles of the evolutionary theory to which I subscribe.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wf3h@enter.netxx
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
On 3 Jul 1998 18:40:57 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
wf3h@enter.netxx wrote:
On 3 Jul 1998 12:47:09 -0400, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
sure can. we can, for example, disprove
the old steady state theory of the universe. thus, again, you
are wrong.
You cannot prove how conditions were billions
of years ago. One can only speculate on the basis of probabilities.
i didnt say you could. YOU posted above that
no theories could be DISPROVEN. that is false. and that is what
i posted. perhaps your spirits and genies can explain it for
you.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
and there is where you fail.
I humbly fail to see my failure.
because now you have to prove that the conditions
which formed life were the same conditions that exist today.
you're digging yourself a deeper hole
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
and, again, your statement that life comes
from life is a failure
Now THAT is unscientific dogmatism.
meaningless. virtually every statement you've
posted is either wrong, or is modified by you to become more
convoluted. if something is demonstrated to be wrong, its useless
to call it dogmatism when its pointed out that its wrong. a much
more useful piece of information would be to show WHY its wrong.
but your arguments have never had one piece
of evidence to back them up.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means.
then why did you say it?
Because the life coming from life is one
of the basic principles of the evolutionary theory to which I
subscribe.
except evolutionary theory doesnt say this.
evolutionary theory is silent on the origin of life. if this
is wrong, please cite the relevant information. so far your information
consists of the idea that there's life on the sun because the
spirit world causes it to bethere...
that would have given darwin a heart attack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: howard hershey
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Exactly how do you propose life as we know it to exist in the
conditions of the Big Bang when life as we know it cannot even
exist in the much milder conditons of molten lava on the earth
or the surface of the sun? Why is there no evidence of life earlier
than 3.5 billion years before the present on this planet?
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
No more (indeed less so) than your assertion
that 'life has always and in all conditions come from life'.
Do you also assume that the earth also always existed? And that
the earth was always a site compatible with the continued existence
of life as we know it (i.e., was never molten)?
Like I said, the existing evidence (wrt
the conditions in which all known forms of life exist) tends
to rule out this possibility.
Evidence proves or disproves.
Evidence is *congruent with* (supports) or
*incongruent with* (fails to support) particular theories.
Tendencies are something else, and in this
case, unspecified.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
Not at all. There are many non-conjectural
conditions where life as we know it will not produce life. The
surface of the sun being one. The early moments of the universe
being another. Molten lava being another. Under these conditions
life as we know it will cease. Since there is evidence against
a steady state universe and in favor of the big bang, the early
stages of the universe represent a condition in which life as
we know it will not exist. The ball is in your court. You need
to provide evidence that shows that the big bang is less well
supported than a steady state universe and that the earth was
in continuous existence as a body favorable for life as we know
it.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
As opposed to your alternative of life
(as we know it) existing under the conditions of the Big Bang?
You are aware that carbon (much less the organocabon molecules
of life) did not exist under those conditions? At least standard
abiogenesis does not require the invention of new forms of life
that are rather ethereal, but only the invention of life as we
know it.
Perhaps we still don’t know life,
even within the confines of our own present earth condition.
We sure do understand the material nature of life as we know
it enough to know that there are many conditions where it will
not exist.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
What is beyond science is whether the materialistic
process of abiogenesis was or was not directed by a deity.
When phrased like this, the only alternative
to a material, lifeless, inorganic origin of organic cells would
be a "deity dictator" taken from the theology of organized
religion - in this case, a monotheistic religion. What I am implying
is that perhaps a more highly evolved species beyond the confines
of our physical senses may be the origin of "lower species"
including homo sapiens. And perhaps these again have their origin
elsewhere - still within the realm of living beings.
There is no effective difference between your
non-coporeal beings and the "deity dictator" other
than number, a point I agree is as unknown and unknowable. Having
life-as-we-know-it being made (using the material of life-as-we-know-it)
by some entity(ies) which is life-as-we-do-not-know-it *means*
that life-as-we-know-it had a moment of origin and did not always
arise by life-as-we-know-it coming from life-as-we-know-it. Life-as-we-know-it
was 'created' (in your proposal) out of the non-living material
of life-as-we-know-it.
What is not beyond science is placing limits and conditions
and sites under which this materialistic process occurred. Life
as we know it does not exist under conditions which would prevail
in the Big Bang.
"Life conditions in the Big Bang"
is a thought experiment, nothing else.
The current cosmological evidence is congruent
with the theory of the big bang. The current cosmological evidence
is incongruent with the theory of a steady state universe and/or
an eternal earth. Do you have an alternative explanation which
is congruent with the evidence? I.e., do you have a better cosmological
explanation which is congruent with your wild speculation that
life always existed?
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means.
There are many known conditions where life-as-we-know-it
cannot come from life-as-we-know-it. These are conditions where
life-as-we-know-it cannot exist. The Big Bang/ early universe
is just one such condition. The early earth is another.
It has to do with the attitude with which
one conducts one’s research, and which affects one’s
theories and hypotheses.
It has to do with accepting the constraints
imposed by nature rather than taking a phrase like 'life comes
from life' and assuming that it holds in all conditions and making
it a meaningless mantra. And then simply asserting that conditions
where it cannot hold (like the Big Bang) do not exist (despite
this being the contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence
and knowledge about how the material universe works). It is you
that is letting a fixation on a single idea warp your perspective,
requiring you to reject independent findings in differrent fields.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
howard hershey wrote:
Tarjei Straume wrote:
[snip]
First off, I’ll declare my disagreement
with the atheists who believe in a strictly materialistic evolution.
Life comes from life, and it is completely illogical to assume
that living organisms have their origin in lifeless matter. That’s
the superstition of our time.
The full statement, of course, is "Under
current conditions, life comes from life." Much of what
science does is set the conditions under which certain statements
are true. What alternative do you propose instead of life coming
from something lifeless at some point in the history of the universe?
That life always existed (even before the big bang)?
Exactly.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility.
Sounds fantastic. But in nature, life comes
from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Exactly how do you propose life as we know it to exist in the
conditions of the Big Bang when life as we know it cannot even
exist in the much milder conditons of molten lava on the earth
or the surface of the sun? Why is there no evidence of life earlier
than 3.5 billion years before the present on this planet?
Conditions that far back in time are subject
to speculation. No scientific evidence can prove or disprove
anything that distant.
No more (indeed less so) than your assertion
that 'life has always and in all conditions come from life'.
Do you also assume that the earth also always existed? And that
the earth was always a site compatible with the continued existence
of life as we know it (i.e., was never molten)?
I believe the earth has its origin in earlier
embodiments of our solar system
Like I said, the existing evidence (wrt
the conditions in which all known forms of life exist) tends
to rule out this possibility.
Evidence proves or disproves.
Evidence is *congruent with* (supports)
or *incongruent with* (fails to support) particular theories.
Tendencies are something else, and in this
case, unspecified.
That rather than coming from lifeless matter
life came from nothing at all and is therefore composed of nothing
at all?
No. Life did not come from nothing. Life
did not come from the lifeless. Life comes from life.
No. *Under current conditions on the earth*
life comes from life.
Granted. Other conditions are pure conjecture.
Not at all. There are many non-conjectural
conditions where life as we know it will not produce life. The
surface of the sun being one. The early moments of the universe
being another. Molten lava being another. Under these conditions
life as we know it will cease.
...but not life as we don’t know it.
The ancients worshipped the sun because it was the abode of the
gods.
Since there is evidence against a steady
state universe and in favor of the big bang, the early stages
of the universe represent a condition in which life as we know
it will not exist. The ball is in your court. You need to provide
evidence that shows that the big bang is less well supported
than a steady state universe and that the earth was in continuous
existence as a body favorable for life as we know it.
The existing evidence tends to refute that
possibility as well. Life does indeed seem to have come from
lifeless material at some point in history.
Pure unsubstantiated fantasy.
As opposed to your alternative of life
(as we know it) existing under the conditions of the Big Bang?
You are aware that carbon (much less the organocabon molecules
of life) did not exist under those conditions? At least standard
abiogenesis does not require the invention of new forms of life
that are rather ethereal, but only the invention of life as we
know it.
Perhaps we still don’t know life,
even within the confines of our own present earth condition.
We sure do understand the material nature
of life as we know it enough to know that there are many conditions
where it will not exist.
Whether one thinks that that was an unplanned,
accidental, purely materialistic event or one directed in some
manner by a Supreme Entity is beyond the scope of science, which
can only look at the material naturalistic aspects of the process.
If it is beyond the scope of science, you
cannot say that scientific evidence refutes the living origin
of life.
What is beyond science is whether the materialistic
process of abiogenesis was or was not directed by a deity.
When phrased like this, the only alternative
to a material, lifeless, inorganic origin of organic cells would
be a "deity dictator" taken from the theology of organized
religion - in this case, a monotheistic religion. What I am implying
is that perhaps a more highly evolved species beyond the confines
of our physical senses may be the origin of "lower species"
including homo sapiens. And perhaps these again have their origin
elsewhere - still within the realm of living beings.
There is no effective difference between
your non-coporeal beings and the "deity dictator" other
than number, a point I agree is as unknown and unknowable. Having
life-as-we-know-it being made (using the material of life-as-we-know-it)
by some entity(ies) which is life-as-we-do-not-know-it *means*
that life-as-we-know-it had a moment of origin and did not always
arise by life-as-we-know-it coming from life-as-we-know-it. Life-as-we-know-it
was 'created' (in your proposal) out of the non-living material
of life-as-we-know-it.
How about life-as-we-know-it having its origin
in life-as-we-don’t-know-it? A valid thought experiment.
What is not beyond science is placing limits
and conditions and sites under which this materialistic process
occurred. Life as we know it does not exist under conditions
which would prevail in the Big Bang.
Life conditions in the Big Bang" is
a thought experiment, nothing else.
The current cosmological evidence is congruent
with the theory of the big bang. The current cosmological evidence
is incongruent with the theory of a steady state universe and/or
an eternal earth. Do you have an alternative explanation which
is congruent with the evidence? I.e., do you have a better cosmological
explanation which is congruent with your wild speculation that
life always existed?
I do, but it would take me a very long time
to post and a long time to read.
Life as we know it is not composed of nothing,
but has a material basis. One cannot mindlessly repeat that "life
comes from life" and assume that that prevails under all
conditions.
This is something that cannot be proven
or disproven by scientific means.
There are many known conditions where life-as-we-know-it
cannot come from life-as-we-know-it. These are conditions where
life-as-we-know-it cannot exist. The Big Bang/ early universe
is just one such condition. The early earth is another.
Material-biological life, yes. but if I say
that material-biological life has its origin in supersensible
life, the Big Bang does not have to be the beginning.
It hasto do with the attitude with which
one conducts one’s research, and which affects one’s
theories and hypotheses.
It has to do with accepting the constraints
imposed by nature rather than taking a phrase like 'life comes
from life' and assuming that it holds in all conditions and making
it a meaningless mantra. And then simply asserting that conditions
where it cannot hold (like the Big Bang) do not exist (despite
this being the contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence
and knowledge about how the material universe works).
The definition of life I deal with is not
limited to matter.
It is you that is letting a fixation on
a single idea warp your perspective, requiring you to reject
independent findings in differrent fields.
When I say that life comes from life, it is
presented as my theory which cannot be empirically disproven.
Tarjei
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kern
Subject: Re: life from life
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: 1998/07/03
Tarjei Straume says...
howard hershey wrote:
[snip]
The current cosmological evidence is congruent
with the theory of the big bang. The current cosmological evidence
is incongruent with the theory of a steady state universe and/or
an eternal earth. Do you have an alternative explanation which
is congruent with the evidence? I.e., do you have a better cosmological
explanation which is congruent with your wild speculation that
life always existed?
I do, but it would take me a very long
time to post and a long time to read.
Too late. Go ahead; we're used to it in this
newsgroup. It's a hell of a lot better than not even attempting
to support what you post.
[snip]
--
Robert Kern |
----------------------|"In the fields of Hell where the
grass grows high
Replace "NOSPAM" with | Are the graves of dreams allowed
to die."
"ma