Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

[moved from another thread]

HA!  Lincoln Park!  Now I get what you're referencing!  XD

I also hope he doesn't take off points for anecdotal history - it's the same kind of reverse speculation that evolutionists use when talking about the Big Bang as a "fact" even though they weren't there to see it.  Just because I wasn't there in Chateau de Dourdan all those years ago doesn't mean I can't follow the historical clues left behind and pen my historical "facts" as well.  ;)

Minor point but the theory of evolution stops precisely at the moment where life started, so the big bang isn't relevant :)

Minor minor point, but if the theory of evolution stopped precisely at the moment life started, then the Big Bang would be the only thing that was relevant.  XD

What JJJ was saying is that evolutionists have little interest in the actual big bang event, because their field of study begins at the emergence of cellular life.

I know - I was just being cheeky because he worded it incorrectly.  :D

He was thinking in reverse chronological order.

He knows. Thanks, James.

I knew no such thing.
People don't normally talk backwards.
Unless they're Yoda.

The theory of evolution describes how life evolved to become what it is today. It describes a period of time between X and Y, where Y is the present and X is the first life form on Earth. I assumed that you would understand that I was referencing time point X, and not Y, given that you were already aware of the nature of time point Y.

Of course not - you didn't reference that at all.  Not everyone follows your brand of speculation.  ;)

And sorry, but life does not come from lifelessness.  That's asinine.

....this is getting rather derailed, isn't it?

There was a rail?  o_O

I don't think anyone can possibly know that.

That's the point.  No one can know that - so to assume it works definitively one way or the other is silly and speculative (and incidentally, not science).

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seemed as though you were asserting that a lack of life cannot produce life. Is that not just as speculative?

That's why I said no one can know one way or the other.
Although the speculation that makes less common sense seems to be the hot ticket these days some-crazy-how.  X)

You are the only person in this entire thread that has speculated about the origin of life.

It's funny how you've:

A) Said that it's impossible to know where life comes from, and
B) Said that life does not come from lifelessness

How do you know that it doesn't come from lifelessness? Intuition? Pretty hilarious argument.

As for my belief on where life comes from... I don't have one. Unlike you, I'm actually agnostic, and I don't pretend to know anything about where life comes from.

Furthermore, I have a degree in Biology and I know quite a lot more than you do about evolution. You don't even understand what the scope of the theory is. Evolution doesn't actually make any claim about the origin of life. Evolution explains how life transitioned from early states to later states, but does not make any claim about the transition from lifelessness to life.

You're out of your depth, and it's showing. Stick to castles or make an honest attempt to learn.

How do you know life comes from lifelessness?  Observation?  Oh wait - that's your intuition, too.
But considering I've seen life come from life, any speculation that it could come from elsewhere seems silly by comparison.

And if the Big Bang is somehow now not part and parcel with evolution, why does every jackass espousing macroevolution begin with the Big Bang?

By the way, I've never said that I know where life comes from other than that it appears to come from other life.  Evolutionists get all hung up when you want to know where that first life came from?  So do I!  So does everyone.

I've spent plenty of time in college in my 39 years, junior.  And frankly, most of the professors didn't know squat.  So having a piece of paper issued by people already attempting to agree with some aforementioned ludicrous non-science confirmation bias... well, doesn't hold too much weight.

Anyway... I'm not here for this.
Let's get back to the writing at hand.  :)

How do you know life comes from lifelessness?  Observation?  Oh wait - that's your intuition, too.
But considering I've seen life come from life, any speculation that it could come from elsewhere is silly by comparison.

I don't. I'm agnostic and I don't speculate about the origin of life. I leave that to folks like you.

And if the Big Bang is somehow now not part and parcel with evolution, why does every jackass espousing macroevolution begin with the Big Bang?

Your argument that the big bang and evolution are related hinges on jackasses talking about it? My argument that they aren't is that evolution is only concerned with the way that species evolved... and the big bang is completely irrelevant to that.

By the way, I've never said that I know where life comes from other than that it appears to come from other life.  Evolutionists get all hung up when you want to know where that first life came from?  So do I!  So does everyone.

Evolutionists (this is a stupid word... it's like saying round-earthers or gravitationers) don't all get all hung up on anything, because they make up the majority of educated people on Earth and so they have very different viewpoints on a lot of things.

The theory of evolution does not get hung up on where species originated from.

I've spent plenty of time in college in my 39 years, junior.  And frankly, most of the professors didn't know squat.  So having a piece of paper issued by people already attempting to agree with some aforementioned ludicrous non-science confirmation bias... well, doesn't hold too much weight.

How many of those college credits came from courses about evolution? I don't care if you've taken a thousand liberal arts credits, they're not relevant to this discussion.

Here's where we take this offline if you'd like to discuss things further.

As I said, I'm back to the writing.

Are you going to come over and discuss it?

This is not offline!  XD

...No. It's process of elimination. 

There was no life (in this universe) before the big bang. That is basically taken as fact from a scientific standpoint. If there was no life, and now there is, then life must have come from lifelessness at some point.

Hah! Actually not true either, because a lot happened between the big bang and life on Earth.

Life on Earth perhaps, but you just said "life".  ;)

If there wasn't life immediately after the Big Bang, then the law of conservation of energy would dictate that there never would be life... just random inert, lifeless gasses forever.  A grand show - useless, because there's no one there to watch it.

That's plainly not true and if it were true, then we would know that life has existed or does exist outside of Earth. It isn't true, and consequently, we don't know anything about whether or not life has or does exist outside of Earth.

You're probably just saying that because you're of the bent that evolution means life came from lifelessness - which really sounds silly, honestly.

I'm an Agnostic, so everything that is pure speculation that people say is "fact" is silly to me - even what I believe is most likely... the Simulation Universe theory: the same thing that proof of which astounded Neil Degrasse Tyson at that science conference (audio below - can't find the original video anymore).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4

I actually don't think you know what evolution is, to be honest. Evolution doesn't make any argument about where life came from and the origin of life is far outside of the scope of the theory. You're the one who speculated about when life started (immediately after the big bang) and I never have. My argument concerns evolution, not the origin of life.

Oooh... killa throwing some shade.

"All things begin with Nu and end with Nu."