Origin of Life

[RileyG]

That's weird, innit? I mean, is life alive?

Define life and alive. Even germs can be considered “alive” eh?

 

[RileyG]

I don't think anyone can fully define "life" from an academic standpoint.

But the best way to describe it, in my opinion, is: "the miracle of life".

Life as in having characteristics from a scientific academic perspective.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First time I’ve ever heard of him. I should look him up.

Good luck. Hovind is... one of a kind, and I do not mean that positively.

 

[RileyG]

Good luck. Hovind is... one of a kind, and I do not mean that positively.

After reading a few sentences on his Wikipedia page, I think I know enough.

 

[d taylor]

Sounds like Panenthiesm.

-

​

So you think life is itself a god and exist on its own

 

[dlamberth]

-
​

So you think life is itself a god and exist on its own

What I was responding to was the comment "that God is life it should be obvious He is alive". That's a different awareness of the Divine than saying that "life itself is God", which is more of a Pantheist perspective.

 

[RileyG]

-

​

Life did not have a beginning, as God did not have a beginning.

Life as in human life, as well as unicellular organisms, bacteria, protozoa, eukaryotes, animals, .

On earth, they all had a beginning. A start.

 

[d taylor]

Life as in human life, as well as unicellular organisms, bacteria, protozoa, eukaryotes, animals, .

On earth, they all had a beginning. A start.

-
​

The life that is in them did not, that life existed before these things were created

 

[RileyG]

-
​

The life that is in them did not, that life existed before these things were created

Are you referring to the book of Genesis and John Chapter 1? I think I'm following ok.

 

[AV1611VET]

After reading a few sentences on his Wikipedia page, I think I know enough.

Kent Hovind is an excellent defender of the faith.

Witness this short clip:

 

[AV1611VET]

You gave my post a laugh, Warden.

But did you watch the end of the video, where people clapped?

Why do you suppose they clapped, and you laughed?

Any idea?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You gave my post a laugh, Warden.

But did you watch the end of the video, where people clapped?

Why do you suppose they clapped, and you laughed?

Any idea?

Because Hovind is the sort of conman who knows how to appeal to his audience; by telling them exactly what they want to be told.

And I have no respect for men such as Hovind, so he deserves my laughter. He is a fool, a fraud and a conman.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because Hovind is the sort of conman who knows how to appeal to his audience; by telling them exactly what they want to be told.

And I have no respect for men such as Hovind, so he deserves my laughter. He is a fool, a fraud and a conman.

Here is the second comment under the video:

37 years I was not believer. I had the same question and nobody could answered it. This answer changed my mind, changed my life, changed everything. God bless people like Dr. Hovind. Thank you God for opening my eyes.

Did Mr Hovind con him?

And for the record, he held that debate at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

The world's largest, fully accredited university specializing in aviation and aerospace.

So then who was "his audience"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here is the second comment under the video:

37 years I was not believer. I had the same question and nobody could answered it. This answer changed my mind, changed my life, changed everything. God bless people like Dr. Hovind. Thank you God for opening my eyes.

Did Mr Hovind con him?

And for the record, he held that debate at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

The world's largest, fully accredited university specializing in aviation and aerospace.

So then who was "his audience"?

His audience is you; people who have already made up their minds on things like science and just want someone to tell them what they want to hear.

And YouTube comments are exactly that: comments on Youtube. They rarely, if at all, mean anything of value, especially in videos of the likes of Kent Hovind.

And what does it being an aviation university have anything to do with him talking about God? That doesn't mean squat. The location means nothing, only who the speaker is and what they say. And since the speaker is a known and we'll documented liar about science, a tax evaded, a fraud and a conman... well... Hovind deserves my laughter.

 

[AV1611VET]

His audience is you; people who have already made up their minds on things like science and just want someone to tell them what they want to hear.

For 37 years???

If he had that attitude, then why was he a non-believer for 37 years?

And YouTube comments are exactly that: comments on Youtube.

Sounds astute.

They rarely, if at all, mean anything of value, especially in videos of the likes of Kent Hovind.

Dear me.

You seem to have your mind set against someone, and your projector is running on high.

Do you apply those same standards of Internet comments to Google reviews?

And what does it being an aviation university have anything to do with him talking about God?

Well you seemed to imply Mr Hovind chose his audience.

So he crossed his fingers and hoped only his followers would show up at the world's largest, fully accredited university specializing in aviation and aerospace; while everyone else stayed home?

That doesn't mean squat.

It means he's not afraid to take on academia on its own turf.

The location means nothing, only who the speaker is and what they say.

Does that apply to all three of the speakers who were there to confront him?

Namely, Jim Strayer, Luther Reisbig, and Reinhold Schlieter?

And since the speaker is a known and we'll documented liar about science, a tax evaded, a fraud and a conman... well... Hovind deserves my laughter.

Tax evader?

Do you apply your same standards to Antoine Lavoisier, Stewart David Nozette, John McAfee, and Yantai Gan?

 

[Bradskii]

Would you say then, that a living [plant or] animal is a gestalt?

That is, it is greater than the sum of its parts?

No, it is the actual sum of it's parts. That's why there is no single definition. It's a combination of things that determine if something is alive.

As Kent pointed out, once you shut the blender off, you still need to introduce energy back into the equation.

We've gone through this. We all agree, including Hovind, that you can't simply mix the constituents and immediately get all the characteristics appearing (plugging them into the mains makes no difference). It's like Hoyle's metaphor of a tornado through a junkyard producing a 747. It ain't going to happen. So we'll ignore that and investigate how it could happen.

We need to go back to looking at dealing cards.

 

[AV1611VET]

Getting back on track are we, Brad?

 

[Bradskii]

It's not science though.

It's science that we'll be discussing. Don't derail the thread.

You cannot demonstrate abiogenesis, no one has ever seen it occur, and it can't even be defined without vague terminology.

There are many things that can't be demonstrated. We can't demonstrate Colonel Mustard killing Professor Plum in the library with a lead pipe, so we look for evidence. And the definition of abiogenesis is quite straightforward. Just Google it. Then tell me if you understand the process of getting a sequence from the deck of cards.

 

[Bradskii]

Define life and alive. Even germs can be considered “alive” eh?

That was done in one of the first posts.

 

[RileyG]

That was done in one of the first posts.

Ope! Monkey brain moment! Thanks for letting me know