If the Sun creates life then...

1235

Replies

  • perspective@100perspective@100 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    You guys are acting as if Fiat has won this debate. He has only turned "his" arguement that at one time had solid points into a bunch of nonsensical babel which you lackeys eat right up because you can't see through the BS, but I can. I clearly stated the pig/pork sandwhich comparison does not apply because it involves a combination of things and I refer to the sun and its energy as one single thing which is life! He then continued to use this nonsense and compare nuclear/chemical reactions to a pig? Really? Anyway I cleared this up but he simply ignored this and said my arguement was not SYLLOGISTIC. I then stated Scientist use my style of logic all the time and even provided an example with the "all life forms being carbon based theory". He quickly changed his once universal theme of science and the scientific method to the same thing I'm doing in this forum "Personal opinion" and the proof is seen right here>
    fiat_money wrote: »
    "I" only accept that all known organisms are carbon-based as fact. For me to say otherwise would be "carbonally" chauvinistic.
    He even tried to be cute about it with his choice of words, lol^^^
    fiat_money wrote: »
    since your argument is not syllogistically sound. And, despite what your usage of flawed reasoning may suggest, pigs are not sandwiches

    Once again referencing his own BS, but I'm sure none of you read me stomping this crap in the mud. Tell science that all life forms being carbon based is not syllogistically sound. He keeps saying my reasoning is flawed , but it is he who cant understand that he has no reasoning just other peoples thoughts.
    fiat_money wrote: »
    because simply being a component of something does not mean that the components have all of the same qualities as that which they compose.

    Once again trying to use simple math terminology to describe something as complex as life does not throw me for a loop. You don't fully understand the qualities of life so you should not throw the sun out the window.

    not to mention he dodged my question as seen here when I asked him to reveal to us all when life actually begins his response was:
    fiat_money wrote: »
    The uncertainty of abiogenesis doesn't disprove modern biology

    Sniff sniff, BS!

    His arguement is done, he has nothing else valid to throw at me. The rest of you who keep throwing this science BS at me I will continue to crush with my own simple thoughts.
    Fiat_Money has only done what Moderators do to make themselves seem right. Creating a silly rediculous scenario in their opponents arguement exploiting it to make them sound unintelligent and then ignore every rebutal.

    Sorry that does not work with me....
  • KTULU IS BACKKTULU IS BACK Posts: 6,617
    edited January 2011
    You guys are acting as if Fiat has won this debate.

    It's not a debate, he's just trying to teach you basic things and you're refusing to listen because you're retarded or something, I dunno
  • perspective@100perspective@100 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    b*braze wrote: »

    this has nothing to do with thesubject so... skip

    The portion you so brazenly skipped shows what kind of people all of your so called "facts" and accepted thoughts come from.
    b*braze wrote: »

    so when dealing with a scientific subject, we should throw all scientific facts out the window? ok. got it.

    I never told you to do anything of the sort, but if your going to try and come up with a different definition of life itself then you ought not be using the science we already have to come up with the hypothesis.



    b*braze wrote: »
    nothing wrong with challenging facts, as science encourages this... but what do you have to back up your claims/conclusions? what are you bringing to the table besides "i woke up one day and decided it was all bullshit."


    sorry id rather rely on "collections of data with similar results" then some dude going with his gut feelings.

    Soooo, your basically not challenging anything? lol, be realistic

    I've discussed what I brought to the table. Its information thats proven and you all just look past it nonchalantly. Every living organism has energy inside it. Period. The sun is made of energy and that is what started life here on Earth. cant be more clear and at the dinner table than that. Fact is fact. Name one organism that does not use energy and I will STFU

    fiat_money wrote: »
    Highly-cosignable post.

    LOL and you co-signed this contradictory statement... hahahaha
  • perspective@100perspective@100 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    It's not a debate, he's just trying to teach you basic things and you're refusing to listen because you're retarded or something, I dunno

    Ktulu all you do is name call... whats the matter were you abused as a child?

    He's trying to brain wash me with nonsense that you and your other lackeys believe. Keep that sh*t to yourself.
  • KTULU IS BACKKTULU IS BACK Posts: 6,617
    edited January 2011
    Ktulu all you do is name call... whats the matter were you abused as a child?

    i was scared to smile, they called me ugly

    life is harsh

    i aint huggin you tho
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,655 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    ...I clearly stated the pig/pork sandwhich comparison does not apply because it involves a combination of things and I refer to the sun and its energy as one single thing which is life!
    Simply because you refer to the Sun and its energy as one single thing does not mean that the Sun is not a combination of things. Most basically it is a combination of hydrogen and helium atoms.
    He then continued to use this nonsense and compare nuclear/chemical reactions to a pig? Really? Anyway I cleared this up but he simply ignored this and said my arguement was not SYLLOGISTIC. I then stated Scientist use my style of logic all the time and even provided an example with the "all life forms being carbon based theory". He quickly changed his once universal theme of science and the scientific method to the same thing I'm doing in this forum "Personal opinion" and the proof is seen right here>
    This did nothing to substantiate your reasoning. Even if I believed that I could affirm that all life in the universe is carbon-based, that would do nothing to prove that the Sun is alive. The flaw in your comparison is that while not all life in the univerese has been examined, the atoms and chemical/nuclear processes that compose and are produced by the Sun have been both observed and calculated. The difference here is that one makes inferences about that which is known; while the other makes inferences about that which is unknown. It is known how nuclear fusion in the Sun produces heavier atoms than hydrogen, it is known that the Sun's large mass causes it to have strong gravity, it is known that the connecting and subsequent rearrangement of magnetic poles through highly-electrically conductive plasmas causes solar flares, etc. Therefore, inferences can be made about the Sun, since it is both well-observed and it's processes are well-known. What is not known is the chemical composition of every single organism in the universe. In the past week alone a new species of gray wolf was discovered in Africa, two months ago an organism with arsenic-based DNA was discovered for the first time. This shows that it is highly likely that the chemical make-up of all life is not known. However, despite the fact that these species were previously unknown they still completely satisfy the biology requirements to be considered life; what still does not is the Sun. The "pork sandwich" example was merely the simplest example I created to show how flawed your reasoning is, it still remains valid, because despite your acknowledgment of it, the Sun is still a combination of things. If you think the "pork sandwich" argument is flawed, it only reflects upon the flaws in your own reasoning.
    Once again referencing his own BS, but I'm sure none of you read me stomping this crap in the mud. Tell science that all life forms being carbon based is not syllogistically sound. He keeps saying my reasoning is flawed , but it is he who cant understand that he has no reasoning just other peoples thoughts.
    Syllogism is nothing but a very basic form of logic. If an argument fails to satisfy such basic logical standards, the argument fails completely. Even If I knew absolutely nothing of stars, I'd know that saying the Sun is alive simply because it is responsible for life on Earth is flawed reasoning.
    Once again trying to use simple math terminology to describe something as complex as life does not throw me for a loop. You don't fully understand the qualities of life so you should not throw the sun out the window.
    Sure, life is complex, but all that's being discussed here are very basic concepts. In addition to your argument failing to satisfy basic principles of logical reasoning--deductive or syllogistic--the Sun also fails to satisfy the basic requirement to be considered "alive". The complexity of biology isn't addressed here because your argument fails at the basics of biology.
    not to mention he dodged my question as seen here when I asked him to reveal to us all when life actually begins his response was:
    There was nothing to "dodge", as I've yet to address any of the completely irrelevant parts of your posts. The amino acids that were precursors to life on Earth are not present in the Sun; so explaining how they lead to life arising on Earth lacks relevance.
    His arguement is done, he has nothing else valid to throw at me. The rest of you who keep throwing this science BS at me I will continue to crush with my own simple thoughts.
    There's nothing that's needed to be to "thrown" at you, your argument as you stated are your "own simple thoughts"; thoughts neither substantiated nor logical in this case. Since your argument had basic flaws logical and scientific flaws, its failure was apparent the moment you made this thread.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011

    He's trying to brain wash me with nonsense that you and your other lackeys believe. Keep that sh*t to yourself.

    Nigga you can't be serious. You're the one that's making things up without presenting any facts. You actually admitted that these are your ideas looking at shit (not testing it). Do you think the measurements of the heat of the sun or it's density are acquired just by staring? You'll burn your eyes out.
  • perspective@100perspective@100 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    The underline/Bold in your following quotes are examples of your arrogance in knowledge. Such a cocky attitude when you know very little about the universe.
    Only what science tells you. Its really rediculous when I read sentences that start out like this and use such a pompous vocabulary. False intelligence. Its an arrogance in your words that trys to portray my thoughts as hearsay, but actually I'm only stating the obvious which everyone can "verify" themselves if they think for themselves and not let science brain wash them into thinking scientific terms are the final say in knowledge.

    Example#1
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Simply because you refer to the Sun and its energy as one single thing does not mean that the Sun is not a combination of things.
    Energy is singular, as I refer to it in being resposible for life itself. You can deny it all you want, but like I said every thing has energy. People keep saying I have "tested nothing" , but science has tested everything for me. Every living organism has energy. When trying to discover the orgin of something you look for the common link or a similar characteristic they have in common. Its so Fundamental and obvoius you all are blind to it. This technique is also used in Genealogy when they use genetic testing.

    Example#2
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Most basically it is a combination of hydrogen and helium atoms.
    yea, you read that somewhere right?
    fiat_money wrote: »
    This did nothing to substantiate your reasoning
    It showed numerous flaws in your arguement others might not see. I will continue to show flaws in your arguement since you believe my so called reasoning is flawed.



    Example#'s 3&4
    fiat_money wrote: »
    The flaw in your comparison is that while not all life in the univerese has been examined, the atoms and chemical/nuclear processes that compose and are produced by the Sun have been both observed and calculated. The difference here is that one makes inferences about that which is known; while the other makes inferences about that which is unknown.

    Yes they have been observed and calcutlated but other than that they have no clue of orgin, or how to control the complex inner workings. This is why they have Particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) as CERN to try and figure things out.
    If anyone is making inferences about what is known it is YOU! And we all know you don't have your own ideas. YOU, know nothing. Just because "they" have examined everything about the sun on a chemical level does not rule out the fact there are some forms of life whether biological or Non-biological they can't even begin to comprehend.

    Exmaple#'s 5,6,7,8,9
    fiat_money wrote: »
    It is known how nuclear fusion in the Sun produces heavier atoms than hydrogen, it is known that the Sun's large mass causes it to have strong gravity, it is known that the connecting and subsequent rearrangement of magnetic poles through highly-electrically conductive plasmas causes solar flares, etc. Therefore, inferences can be made about the Sun, since it is both well-observed and it's processes are well-known.

    All these "knowns" and yet somehow someway the question of when life starts remains a complete mystery. They don't know anything. They just learn from the discovery just like me and you.

    Example# 10
    fiat_money wrote: »
    What is not known is the chemical composition of every single organism in the universe. In the past week alone a new species of gray wolf was discovered in Africa, two months ago an organism with arsenic-based DNA was discovered for the first time.

    I'll just be like you guys and say "this does nothing to substantiate your claims"^^^

    Example#11
    fiat_money wrote: »
    This shows that it is highly likely that the chemical make-up of all life is not known. However, despite the fact that these species were previously unknown they still completely satisfy the biology requirements to be considered life; what still does not is the Sun.

    The rules of Biology concerning life are rules that govern you and your thought process, not mine. Thats why you "Know" about as much as you can read, and not observe for yourself. Even if you do observe something and it makes sense to you, you will let these rules of Biology override any original thoughts you began to have about nature. Its such an excellent brain washing technique. You have been a pawn from the start.

    Example#12
    fiat_money wrote: »
    The "pork sandwich" example was merely the simplest example I created to show how flawed your reasoning is, it still remains valid, because despite your acknowledgment of it, the Sun is still a combination of things. If you think the "pork sandwich" argument is flawed, it only reflects upon the flaws in your own reasoning.Syllogism is nothing but a very basic form of logic. If an argument fails to satisfy such basic logical standards, the argument fails completely. Even If I knew absolutely nothing of stars, I'd know that saying the Sun is alive simply because it is responsible for life on Earth is flawed reasoning.

    I have had just about enough of your syllogism mubo jumbo. Stop referencing it. All your trying to do is convince people I'm not making sense when in fact I'm making more sense then modern science allows. I mean really can you hear yourself? SIMPLY BECAUSE ITS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIFE ON EARTH...... huh?


    Example# 13
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Sure, life is complex, but all that's being discussed here are very basic concepts.
    Thats all "your" discussing because thats all "you" know, and since these concepts have been proven facts by the science world my concepts "seem" irrelevant. Wrong!

    Example#14&15
    fiat_money wrote: »
    In addition to your argument failing to satisfy basic principles of logical reasoning--deductive or syllogistic--the Sun also fails to satisfy the basic requirement to be considered "alive". The complexity of biology isn't addressed here because your argument fails at the basics of biology.

    Hmm, pay special attention to what your saying in example #15, "The basic requirement to be considered alive"
    Life has gone from being complex to something basic. Wow, you are really brainwashed. They still dont know what it means to be alive and here you state it as if you know. This is laughable and I will stop here as you have no idea that you dont really "know" anything.

    I have cited 15 instances where you are trying to persuade readers using semantic superiority and not common sense. These facts you speak of prove nothing, life is not restricted to biology. Life is beyond modern biology but you all are so stuck in a text book you can not see it for yourselves.

    Being spoon fed BS has you all full of it!!!
  • perspective@100perspective@100 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Nigga you can't be serious. You're the one that's making things up without presenting any facts. You actually admitted that these are your ideas looking at shit (not testing it). Do you think the measurements of the heat of the sun or it's density are acquired just by staring? You'll burn your eyes out.

    First off, don't call me nigga, thats you...
    Second you dont know what a fact is. I dont need to test that which is common knowledge. The sun is resposible for life here on Earth. I think I can go outside into the sun and feel its heat on my skin and come up with my own ideas, how about you?
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    First off, don't call me nigga, thats you...
    Second you dont know what a fact is. I dont need to test that which is common knowledge. The sun is resposible for life here on Earth. I think I can go outside into the sun and feel its heat on my skin and come up with my own ideas, how about you?

    I shouldn't call you nigga. your right, your probably white. Seriously though, Go back to school and get a different perspective. I guess electricity and gravity are alive too. How you just gonna go around changing definitions and doing bad science while shitting on real science. Stop confusing yourself.
  • BiblicalAtheist BiblicalAtheist Prude Posts: 10,520 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I guess electricity and gravity are alive too.
    Maybe not but they do have existence, in contrast with non existent, like unicorns.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Maybe not but they do have existence, in contrast with non existent, like unicorns.

    So? Life and being alive is a definition based on certain components that rocks and the sun don't share as expressed too many times in this thread.
  • BiblicalAtheist BiblicalAtheist Prude Posts: 10,520 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    So? Life and being alive is a definition based on certain components that rocks and the sun don't share as expressed too many times in this thread.

    I was just sayin'......

    They are alive in the sense they exist as opposed to being dead/non existent. They are "alive" in some sense. They have "life" in some sense, eventually, their "life span" will wither, and the sun will fizzle and be no more.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    I was just sayin'......

    They are alive in the sense they exist as opposed to being dead/non existent. They are "alive" in some sense. They have "life" in some sense, eventually, their "life span" will wither, and the sun will fizzle and be no more.

    But this is just the thing about life or being alive. The reproduction guards against eventual decay of the participating lifeforms. Meaning cellar regeneration (which is life) keeps cells regenerating and reproducing either within that life form or passing to another life form via reproduction.

    A rock exist too, is it alive? In the sense that you use it, it is only a measurement of deterioration. Reproduction guards against deterioration being the end of the species. Life.
  • BiblicalAtheist BiblicalAtheist Prude Posts: 10,520 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    But this is just the thing about life or being alive. The reproduction guards against eventual decay of the participating lifeforms. Meaning cellar regeneration (which is life) keeps cells regenerating and reproducing either within that life form or passing to another life form via reproduction.

    A rock exist too, is it alive? In the sense that you use it, it is only a measurement of deterioration. Reproduction guards against deterioration being the end of the species. Life.

    Reproduction is just a different categorization of the same thing, changing energy.
  • b*brazeb*braze Posts: 8,968
    edited January 2011
    Haha, I don't know. One day I just woke up like this is all bullshit and no one could tell me different. Its like when you discover Santa' Clause has been dead for hundreds of years. I was 5. Saw the history documentery on tv. Couldn't believe my parents were such liars, lol

    realistically... all reasonable responses to this thread shouldve ended right here
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Reproduction is just a different categorization of the same thing, changing energy.

    Wrong on all accounts. Reproduction is splitting cells which utilizes energy to fuel the process. But that is only one step in a process which utilizes DNA and RNA to create a template.
  • BiblicalAtheist BiblicalAtheist Prude Posts: 10,520 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Wrong on all accounts. Reproduction is splitting cells which utilizes energy to fuel the process. But that is only one step in a process which utilizes DNA and RNA to create a template.

    Everything is energy, you cannot escape it. No matter how you wish to word it, categorize it, label it, segregate it, its still all energy, always has been and always will be....as far as we know it at this point in our understanding.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Everything is energy, you cannot escape it. No matter how you wish to word it, categorize it, label it, segregate it, its still all energy, always has been and always will be....as far as we know it at this point in our understanding.

    But everything isn't alive nor does everything use the energy of external sources to survive nor does it show concern for survival.
  • BiblicalAtheist BiblicalAtheist Prude Posts: 10,520 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    But everything isn't alive nor does everything use the energy of external sources to survive nor does it show concern for survival.

    Well since everything is energy, and we know energy isn't "dead" or it wouldn't exist, it could be said all things are "alive" and have existence. I realize you want to keep all things in their right boxes and nicely labeled, but its all still the same old thing, ever changing lively energy.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Well since everything is energy, and we know energy isn't "dead" or it wouldn't exist, it could be said all things are "alive" and have existence. I realize you want to keep all things in their right boxes and nicely labeled, but its all still the same old thing, ever changing lively energy.

    Energy is just that. Life takes a combination of energy formed into matter creating structures that are able to reproduce, adapt and pass inheritance. That is the definition of life. You just want to give everything and anything that definition.

    The definition of being alive is particular. If you want to give a name to the fact that everything is created from a substructure of energy, then be my guess. I guess a house is an orange now.
  • UPTOWNUPTOWN Posts: 12,993 Regulator
    edited January 2011
    fiat_money wrote: »
    No, it doesn't satisfy the basic requirements to be considered "alive"; reproduction/evolution, homeostasis, metabolization, responding to stimuli, etc.

    Just because a chemical reaction occurs within something and produces something doesn't mean it's alive.

    but the sun will "live" much longer than you and i, so how do you know it wont reproduce?? who cares what scientists "think" will happen when the sun "burns out"
  • BiblicalAtheist BiblicalAtheist Prude Posts: 10,520 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Energy is just that. Life takes a combination of energy formed into matter creating structures that are able to reproduce, adapt and pass inheritance.
    Right, that is what we have concluded some forms of energy do. Other forms do not do this same thing.
    That is the definition of life.
    Right, but it's still fundamentally energy.
    You just want to give everything and anything that definition.
    Correct, I want all things labeled as they truly are, energy, no matter which category they are segregated into.
    The definition of being alive is particular.
    Because it helps us categorize the different forms of the same substance.
    If you want to give a name to the fact that everything is created from a substructure of energy, then be my guess.
    Just calling it what it is.
    I guess a house is an orange now.
    Different labels for the same thing, energy, just in different forms and we point them out and label them. But thanks for the smartass-ism.
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Don't believe the hype Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    Right, that is what we have concluded some forms of energy do. Other forms do not do this same thing.


    Right, but it's still fundamentally energy.


    Correct, I want all things labeled as they truly are, energy, no matter which category they are segregated into.

    Because it helps us categorize the different forms of the same substance.

    Just calling it what it is.

    Different labels for the same thing, energy, just in different forms and we point them out and label them. But thanks for the smartass-ism.

    Ok then you go on and have your energy drink and I'll go on naming structures that i actually interact with.
  • perspective@100perspective@100 Posts: 1,402 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2011
    b*braze wrote: »
    realistically... all reasonable responses to this thread shouldve ended right here

    Actually if you were never open to someone elses "thinking" you should have stopped reading here:
    is the sun itself "alive"?

    Just something I've been thinking about...
Sign In or Register to comment.