When did 'LIFE" begin? (Science in relation with the Biblical description)

[Hakurei Reimu]

Nothing More, than say, a mist. (Gen 2:6)

If you mean "mist" a supercritical fluid, then yes. However, I doubt that anyone would describe a supercritical fluid as a mist. More like, a thick, burning, flesh-eating almost-liquid.

In case you don't know what I'm talking about, please reference my post on the matter:
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12787.msg1223534#msg1223534

I like to have a misty day and do not drown, or die because of it.

You can't drown in a pure helium atmosphere either, but you will die in it. This is because what you call "drowning" is your lungs being unable to pull oxygen from liquid water. If they could, you wouldn't die from drowning, because you are getting the oxygen you need. Drowning is a form of apoxia. You put enough other gasses into the atmosphere, you will die from apoxia.

You forget that all this water did not change into something else but water.
They filled the ocean.

But BEFORE that water filled the ocean, it was in the atmosphere, was it not? Mist doesn't harm you, not because its mist, but because it doesn't interfere with your bodily functions, including your lungs extracting oxygen from the air. That's when the crouding would occur. If your air is ninety-five precent water by weight, everything else, including oxygen can only be in that remaining 5%, and that 5% is not going to sustain you.

Think, McFly! Think!

You obviously did not even take time to look at my explanation on the origins of the Universe,typical

Bullshit. I was reading your explanation. That's why I was able to point out problems in them.

You seem not to realize that the ideas you propose have discernable effects on what kind of conditions would be necessary to effect that. You claimed that water vapor in the atmosphere would have a shielding effect, preventing C14 from being formed as readily. We kinda know something about how radiation shielding works! We can put some numbers to your notions and figure out that the amount of water vapor that would need to be in the atmosphere to create the kind of effect you're talking about, and see that those numbers aren't compatible with life as we know it.

This is why I ask you for NUMBERS connected to your claims. You claimed that water in the atmosphere (which came out in the flood) prevented C14 from being formed as readily as today. You thought that, because it seemed to work on a qualitative level, that it would also work if you put some realistic numbers to it. But I've shown that this is not the case.

Then you accuse me of "not taking time to look at my explanation." No, dearheart, that's not going to fly. You present this to any scientific conference, and they would have you for breakfast.

Typical. Swearing,

What does swearing have to do with the damn point? Oh, that's right. Nothing.

creating a straw man, and thinking my position is in error.

Oh, no, I can't POSSIBLY think that your position is in error. What an egregious sin of me to think that your explanation was in error.

Did you not say that a C14 test would confuse a 4000 year old sample with one 40,000 year old sample due to the shielding of water in the atmosphere? Well, that implies that there has to be a certain amount of water in the atmosphere. Just because that the amount of water required (because I know something about how effective water is at radiation shielding) implies unpleasant things about your atmospheric composition you had not considered doesn't make my characterization a "strawman." A real scientist, when confronted with an obvious oversight like this, responds by answering the damn question or eating it. The fact that you have not done either proves that you are not thinking in any mode deserving the description "scientific."

Show how my explanation was in error or a strawman. Otherwise, this is just jibber jabber on your part.

Pal, I dont even like Ken Hovind.

So? That doesn't make your position original. It isn't. We have heard something like it before.

All I did was to show you that C14 tests are correct when one take into an account that the Atmosphere did not reach equilibrium 3500 years ago.

Nonsense. You showed no such thing. See, you need MATH based on SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE to show you this, which is what I provided in my second message. You didn't provide diddly-squat. You provided a notion that you didn't do the damn work to show that your notion had any believability.

I also then took a small description from Genesis that said that Life would have lasted much longer in such an atmosphere than today.

So what if the Bible said it? Did they actually do so, using the methods of science? You're trying to show that the Bible squares away what with what the SCIENCE says. That means you need to use SCIENCE to show that what the Bible says has any truth to it.

The Bible has not been shown by you to be a science textbook: that's what you're here to prove. You don't get to use it as if it is a science book until you show that it squares away with science. So far, you're not doing a very good job. If the Bible claims that there can be a solar and lunar eclipse on the same day, it's wrong no matter how strongly you appeal to it.

I showed you that Radiation, especially C14, is the reason for ageing in the Human body, or any living body for that matter.

You showed no such thing. You merely claimed that. You didn't even produce studies showing that it was radiation that was the principle cause of aging in the general population, or that a pristine, nonradioactive, and unradiated human would live significantly longer than a similar, normally irradiated human.

Radiation was thought to be a principle contributor to aging. But then free radicals were fingered. Now, it's shortening telomeres. It's looking more and more like aging is not a simple phenomenon, but a whole cluster of complex causes. As such, controlling one factor may not have any significant effect.

I even showed you that there are a market to produce C14 free food, with a scientific claim that one will age slower if free from c14.

So what if some people SAY that it's a scientific claim that one will age slower if you get C14 free food? Believe it or not, there is a lot of food woo in the culture. Your first reference was for a food magazine. The second link was for a patent â€" which only has to do what it says, not that what it does is any use at all. Your third link has rebuttal papers, even in its own journal.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-009-0264-4

This is not what I call "showing" anything.

Now, whats your problem with the facts that I showed to you.
Perhaps total denial?

No, I already told you. Your "facts" are not established as such.

Show me I am wrong about humans ageing due to Radiation, and C14 equilibrium atmosphere, and then come back to me.

You made the claim that radiation causes aging, as if it is the single determining factor. While I agree that excessive radiation may cause premature aging, but so does sleep deprivation, so you have not shown that if you get all the radiation out of your life, you will live significantly longer. The burden is on you to show that radiation is the dominant cause of aging. Good luck.

I've already shown your figures for C14 shielding to be untenable in my abovelinked message.

Now you are simply reaching out for straws left right and center, in an attempt that you might build a strawman to destroy.
No, it does not work this way.

The only option for you is to prove the following scientific facts wrong.
1. Does people age because of radiation.
2. do you have evidence that the Atmosphere was in equilibrium earlier than minus 4YK.

You have not supported either "scientific fact" at all. I don't have to prove you wrong because you have yet to show any indication that you are right. Your notions remain just that: notions. I'm the only one of us from us two who has shown any MATH to back up their claims.

Simple.
Do that and I am wrong!
If you cant, accept your defeat against the Biblical descriptions about creation.

Done. Hell, it was done before you even replied. Now, get to answering.
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12787.msg1223534#msg1223534

[Hydra009]

If it weren't for Emperor Constantine we'd never have heard of Genesis, or David or Jesus or Paul. Judaism and Christianity would both be just more myths like those of the Greeks and Roman, but only scholars would know about them.

Yeah, though it's difficult to imagine such a world, it's quite a pleasant scenario.  What would fill the vacuum?  Mithraism, maybe?  Taoism?  Buddhism?  Deism?  And if we want to really flex our imaginations, imagine atheism really taking off centuries before it did in our reality.

[Baruch]

Yeah, though it's difficult to imagine such a world, it's quite a pleasant scenario.  What would fill the vacuum?  Mithraism, maybe?  Taoism?  Buddhism?  Deism?  And if we want to really flex our imaginations, imagine atheism really taking off centuries before it did in our reality.

Actually a Brit in a pop level book about Alexander, makes a plausible case for Buddhism replacing both Zorastrianism and Judaism ... so Christianity and Islam would have never happened.  Buddhism under Emperor Ashoka of India took of just a few decades after Alexander kicked them into action in the Punjab.  Also Alexandria Egypt would have flourished even more, and Rome would have been defeated by the Greeks, with the help of Carthage.

Or people here would have their panties all in a wad over how the common man needs to stop worshiping Zeus ;-)

Atheism is a minority position, for psychological reasons.  Humans aren't Vulcans.

[trdsf]

Yeah, though it's difficult to imagine such a world, it's quite a pleasant scenario.  What would fill the vacuum?  Mithraism, maybe?  Taoism?  Buddhism?  Deism?  And if we want to really flex our imaginations, imagine atheism really taking off centuries before it did in our reality.

Even just the Roman Empire's generally laissez-faire attitude -- basically "believe what you want as long as you don't revolt" -- towards other religions rather than Christianity's "CONVERT OR DIE!" would have been an improvement.  You'd probably end up with something resembling Jeffersonian Deism hundreds of years earlier.  And we just might still have the Library of Alexandria.  Maybe scholarship and free inquiry would have filled the void.  Now there's a blissful thought.

[Cavebear]

Carbon 14 dating is only representative of many methods.  But theists hate them all.  Facts get in the way of their beliefs.

[Baruch]

Even just the Roman Empire's generally laissez-faire attitude -- basically "believe what you want as long as you don't revolt" -- towards other religions rather than Christianity's "CONVERT OR DIE!" would have been an improvement.  You'd probably end up with something resembling Jeffersonian Deism hundreds of years earlier.  And we just might still have the Library of Alexandria.  Maybe scholarship and free inquiry would have filled the void.  Now there's a blissful thought.

Don't know ... the mix between politics and religion is volatile.  In Alexandria both pagans and Jews rioted too.  This was traditional in Alexandria.  Christianity (endorsed by emperor Theodosius as sole legal religion in 380) gave it much more power.  Certainly institutionalized religion plus politics is dangerous.  Pure politics is pacifist, right?

[Baruch]

Carbon 14 dating is only representative of many methods.  But theists hate them all.  Facts get in the way of their beliefs.

The fact is, regardless of what value it might have, the Bible exists.  That is a fact.  And atheists hate that fact.  They only want Das Kapital.

[Mousetrap]

With your definition of "life", you will not reach any consensus with any real scientist studying and researching the various abiogenesis hypotheses.  Similarly, you will not reach consensus with any evolutionary biologist working in the area of pre-DNA and pre-cell evolution.

do you realize you did not answer me on what a "WHORE Creationist website" is?
Or is this a slight slip about the reflective thoughts your mind is composed off?

These folks, who do the hard scientific research, basically see the emergence of life as processes from pure chemical reactions to the eventual introduction of biological evolutionary processes.  Somewhat simplified, they view life as the origin of a self-replicating molecule(s) capable of mutation and becoming subject to natural selection.  Only much later did evolutionary processes form cell walls, RNA and DNA and other aspects of life.  If you consider the science from this perspective, you will have an easier time learning about the relevant science.  If you ignore it you will brand yourself as a creationist chump.

Do you hear yourself?
You are saying that there are "self-replicating molecule(s) capable of mutation"
This is BS at its best.
Please supply me with a scientific discovery of this molecules.
You then tell me that this molecules are already self replicating without any DNA etc. and you continue with this fairy tale of evolution and claim this molecules are already replicating becoming subject to natural selection.
Beertiful!
Where can I get this compounded matter, and can it also replicate Gold atoms with Platinum?
.
If I consider the science from this perspective,I will be the laughing stock of ...the World of Logic in general.

Oh, And if you believe in this silly science, you are an Atheist chump.

Pal, any living thing has working DNA, it breaths, eats, ages, replicates.
your alien life form is non existent.

[Mousetrap]

Defining life is not as easy as most think.  A brief snippet from wiki:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids. In the past, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" through obsolete concepts such as odic force, hylomorphism, spontaneous generation and vitalism, that have now been disproved by biological discoveries. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.

I thought I would just see if you can read about what you claim.
https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
Unproven theories left right and center!

There remain many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis. Experiments have yet to demonstrate the complete transition of inorganic materials to structures like protobionts and protocells and, in the case of the proposed RNA world, have yet to reconcile important differences in mechanisms in the synthesis of purine and pyrimidine bases necessary to form complete RNA nucleotides. In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia.

Guys, there exists not a single thread of evidence that life can erupt spontaneously.
Let me tell you why!
At least 2 hour per week I go through atheists websites, and Richard Dawkins is my source of information.
IF THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE FOR SPONTANEOUS LIFE FORMING FROM INORGANIC MATTER, HE WILL POST IT ON EVERY WEBSITE ON THE WWW!
WELL, EVEN HE CLAIMS ALIAN LIFE SEEDED ON EARTH!

Is a fire alive?  It meets many of the elements of what makes up life.

You are welcome to believe in fairies also, can you fly?

[trdsf]

Ahh, there it is at last.  The grand centerpiece of his whole argument is "You haven't proved it isn't god!"

Mousie, I have something to tell you that you might find shocking, but you really deserve to know: when you don't have a definitive answer to something, the correct answer ranges from "I don't know" to "The evidence indicates this, but it's not conclusive".  And "I don't know" does not mean god.  If you want to claim god you have to demonstrate it independently, not paste it onto an area of active research.

So, not only no concept of science, but no concept of the burden of proof.  What a complete waste of time this was.

[SGOS]

Defining life is not as easy as most think.  A brief snippet from wiki:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids. In the past, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" through obsolete concepts such as odic force, hylomorphism, spontaneous generation and vitalism, that have now been disproved by biological discoveries. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.


Is a fire alive?  It meets many of the elements of what makes up life.

I remember being exposed to "how to identify life" in grade school.  Pretty much the same as Wiki says.  Something like 7 characteristics that all have to be present for a thing to be "life."  Some non living things may also have some of the characteristics, but if they don't have all 7 (or whatever), they aren't alive.

I remember being unsatisfied learning the characteristics, because there really wasn't anything new or extraordinary.  I could have listed these with my own observations, so I guess it sort of validated what I already observed on my own.  But I wanted more.  Where is that dividing line where bags of chemical compounds emerge from the non living?  Is it a line that requires just a baby step to make the transition?  Is it much wider than the step of a baby?

Today, I don't think about it much.  It doesn't seem like the semi miracle that it once did.  As chemicals and atoms join to form compounds and compounds join with other compounds, chemistry allows for some complicated and interesting results.  I don't see life as that much different than other complex combinations that grow out of chemical reactions.  It's just another rather interesting combination, which is interesting to a large degree only because it leads to us.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Do you hear yourself?
You are saying that there are "self-replicating molecule(s) capable of mutation"
This is BS at its best.
Please supply me with a scientific discovery of this molecules.
You then tell me that this molecules are already self replicating without any DNA etc. and you continue with this fairy tale of evolution and claim this molecules are already replicating becoming subject to natural selection.
Beertiful!
Where can I get this compounded matter, and can it also replicate Gold atoms with Platinum?
.
If I consider the science from this perspective,I will be the laughing stock of ...the World of Logic in general.

That's because you have a simplistic understanding of both. Logic dictates that that an organic self-replicator would not be able to replicate gold or platinum, given that neither gold nor platinum are organic, and the organic self-replicator can only produce more organic self-replicators, because it's a... self-replicator. It can only replicate itself, not other things.

Oh, And if you believe in this silly science, you are an Atheist chump.

Okay, be better than us "atheist chumps" and show us using science and logic that your Biblical tale is scientifically plausible, and even true. Guide us, step by step, with ample evidence that the Bible is indeed correct. For instance, your flood. Don't just wax poetically that water would be able to shield us from radiation and therefore C-14 dating is giving us wonky results, and also explain the Bible, because that's not the goal. To us, the Bible is something that doesn't need explaining, the same way that The Lord of the Rings doesn't need explaining. Estimate how much water would need to be in the atmosphere to produce the effect (the prediction), show that it is compatable with human life (basic sanity check), and then show evidence that the Earth ever had this much water in the atmosphere at the time you claim (the test).

I remind you of something I said to you over a week ago, repeated here:

You don't get to call it "bias" just because I've seen a lot of theist arguments before and rejected them. You don't seem to be open to the possibility that, no matter how attractive or correct these arguments or beliefs of yours seem on the surface, that there might be some flaw in them that destroys their validity. That's not being open minded, dearheart.

Being open minded requires you to be open to the possibility that you are wrong. That realization in itself drives one to be reflective on one's own beliefs and drives them to examine why they hold those beliefs in the first place, and when that happens, investigation and curiosity take over and you find evidence and reasoning to place those beliefs on firmer ground, or find reason to drop them because they are ill-supported. I've been at this a while, so I've pretty much constructed a Fortress of Knowledge that has passed every test I could come up with to destroy it.

I have yet to find a non-skeptic who has ever seriously challenged that fortress because such people are in the habit of stopping at a very shallow level of reasoning. As such, none of their attacks have ever found purchase because my fortress is stronger than it appears, and I have already come up with answers to similar challenges. Also, their own world views are comparatively hastily erected and rickety; my own challenges to their ideas receive no satisfactory answer, because they don't know what a proper answer would look like. There have been serious challenges to my fortress, but not by non-skeptics. They're always from people who have spent at least as much time thinking deeply about their subject matter as I have.

I suggest you try to get into the habit of trying to prove yourself wrong, because that is the key to true open mindedness.

So far, you are acting to type. You are clearly a non-skeptic who has a rickety, hastily erected worldview held together with bailing wire and spit. You think otherwise, but reality is not required to conform to the way you think.

I ask you, seriously. Who should we believe?

(1) A guy on the internet who is unable to answer our objections except by ranting, raving, and making baseless accusations of trying to distort his idea, yet is curiously silent about actual calculations and discussions of what kind of hypotheses constitute a proper explanation of the evidence.

or,

(2) Our own calculations and understanding of science, which tells us that if any of what you say is true, then there was no need for God to wipe out human kind on Earth except for Noah and company, due to the fact that every living thing on earth would be dead already from the Steam+ shielding the earth from nasty radiation.

I would only be a chump if I were to trust someone who is telling something that is manifestly not true, and is unable to answer why rebuttals to his point are unfounded, but can only scream invective at us.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And the breakdown  begins for another one.

[Mike Cl]

/quote]
Can you?  I do realize fairies don't exist; apparently you don't. 

[Mousetrap]

If you mean "mist" a supercritical fluid, then yes. However, I doubt that anyone would describe a supercritical fluid as a mist. More like, a thick, burning, flesh-eating almost-liquid.

No simply a mist like one you will experience in an early winter morning.
I backpack a lot, and so far I was not bitten by this phenomena.

In case you don't know what I'm talking about, please reference my post on the matter:
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12787.msg1223534#msg1223534
You can't drown in a pure helium atmosphere either, but you will die in it. This is because what you call "drowning" is your lungs being unable to pull oxygen from liquid water. If they could, you wouldn't die from drowning, because you are getting the oxygen you need. Drowning is a form of apoxia. You put enough other gasses into the atmosphere, you will die from apoxia.
But BEFORE that water filled the ocean, it was in the atmosphere, was it not? Mist doesn't harm you, not because its mist, but because it doesn't interfere with your bodily functions, including your lungs extracting oxygen from the air. That's when the crouding would occur. If your air is ninety-five precent water by weight, everything else, including oxygen can only be in that remaining 5%, and that 5% is not going to sustain you.

I love it how you go and tell me what I explained, but you dont even understand what I say.
No, I am incorrect with this statement.
You know halfheartedly what I explained, yet you have to keep on hammering that the Atmosphere was this thick poisonous thing. Look at your maths.
You are telling me if the Atmosphere was a simple and inocent water mist, there will not be any Oxygen in it.
Funny that I can survive my trail paths when I do some distance walking in nature.
Where do you stay?
Venus?

Think, McFly! Think!
Bullshit. I was reading your explanation. That's why I was able to point out problems in them.

And you still get it wrong?

You seem not to realize that the ideas you propose have discernable effects on what kind of conditions would be necessary to effect that. You claimed that water vapor in the atmosphere would have a shielding effect, preventing C14 from being formed as readily. We kinda know something about how radiation shielding works! We can put some numbers to your notions and figure out that the amount of water vapor that would need to be in the atmosphere to create the kind of effect you're talking about, and see that those numbers aren't compatible with life as we know it.

This is why I ask you for NUMBERS connected to your claims. You claimed that water in the atmosphere (which came out in the flood) prevented C14 from being formed as readily as today. You thought that, because it seemed to work on a qualitative level, that it would also work if you put some realistic numbers to it. But I've shown that this is not the case.

Ok, now you are really shooting bacon.(or the whole pig)
No one has ever calculated how many water there would be needed in the atmosphere to shield the Earth from Cosmic Radiation.
You got it all wrong. First of all, C14 is produced on the perimeter of the Atmosphere, not therein. We are protected by most of the cosmic radiation due to our atmosphere. A very slight amount of water will have a huge decline on N14 to c14 transmission.
I made 2 points which science attests.
1. It is more probable for the Atmosphere to NOT HAVE HAD EQUILIBRIUM 4 YK AGO, THAN BILLIONS OF YEARS.
2. It the atmosphere would only reached equilibrium 4Yk ago, then science say one will live much longer in this c14 free atmosphere.

I then made an observation and concluded that if this is the case, then the Bible is 100% correct that people could have lived to almost a 1 000 years, and I also say a description in the Bible that the atmosphere did change dramatically.

The Bible says, the atmosphere was a mist of water, and there was no refraction of light, until a flood where this water was pulled out of the sky, resulting in a visible rainbow.

Now, if we take these facts into consideration, scientific and Biblical observation, there is no discrepancy on dating techniques as done by science.
And remember the "C14 fee food discovery" made by scientists to prolong life.

Then you accuse me of "not taking time to look at my explanation." No, dearheart, that's not going to fly. You present this to any scientific conference, and they would have you for breakfast.
What does swearing have to do with the damn point? Oh, that's right. Nothing.

You are correct.
Swearing has nothing to do with MY point, but it reflects YOUR poorly allocated position where you think swearing will change the facts.


and I think I am wasteing my time with someone that neeeeeeds to disprove the Bible with arguments Other than those I produced.
The Straw Man offence.
Love it