Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Looking for an example of a "story easy enough to tell" that everyone will agree "is just a story".
Atoms have unique characteristics. Because of these unusual properties, not only does life form, but it continues to adapt to the changing aspects of the environment.
I know it's missing the essential element of God being in the middle of the story....but it's the best I could do for now.
good point!
If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and even passing rocks (if they are large enough) would have life. What is more we could evaluate that "self-organizes-to-produce-life" property in the lab.
Computers are made from basic earth elements - but there is no "property" of matter that dictates that basic elements will self-organize into a computer over time.
But if such a property existed then all the planets would have computers.
So then - I fully agree with you that you are giving a perfect example of a "story easy enough to tell" but it is not science.
No, that would not at all follow.
This is where the concept of emergence is relevant, and suitable conditions for particular types of emergence.If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and passing rocks if they are large enough.
It does once you can admit that all the planets have atoms.
....
No, but it do show that you dont understand physics, biology or chemistry (or even basic logic).
BobRyan said: ↑
If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and passing rocks if they are large enough.
This is where the concept of emergence is relevant, and suitable conditions for particular types of emergence.
you should learn about self-assembly.
That would be "a story easy enough to tell". The claim that an electron "has a property in it" that determines that a rock will turn into a rabbit over time (given an earth sized rock and a lot of time) is a "story". And if you want to call it "a story named emergence" I am fine with that.
We have all already learned that a rock will not self-assemble into a rabbit.
Where is the hard part of this concept?
I can only judge you on your posts.another false claim??
Simply piling them up like that is not a funny kind of "proof" supporting a false accusation. You knew that right?
By saying life "must" form, you are telling a different story than science tells. This is the same rhetorical strategy you employed in mischaracterizing the Lenski experiment. It won't work this time, either.good point!
If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and even passing rocks (if they are large enough) would have life. What is more we could evaluate that "self-organizes-to-produce-life" property in the lab.
Computers are made from basic earth elements - but there is no "property" of matter that dictates that basic elements will self-organize into a computer over time.
But if such a property existed then all the planets would have computers.
So then - I fully agree with you that you are giving a perfect example of a "story easy enough to tell" but it is not science.
I can only judge you on your posts.
My points stand.
good point!
If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and even passing rocks (if they are large enough) would have life. What is more we could evaluate that "self-organizes-to-produce-life" property in the lab.
Computers are made from basic earth elements - but there is no "property" of matter that dictates that basic elements will self-organize into a computer over time.
But if such a property existed then all the planets would have computers.
So then - I fully agree with you that you are giving a perfect example of a "story easy enough to tell" but it is not science.
By saying life "must" form, you are telling a different story than science tells. .
There is ample support, one just need to read your posts.Not until you provide an actual fact to support your false accusation
Well, no. That's not how emergence works - in fact, it's the opposite. As the very first line of the article I linked makes clear.That would be "a story easy enough to tell". The claim that an electron "has a property in it" that determines that a rock will turn into a rabbit over time (given an earth sized rock and a lot of time) is a "story". And if you want to call it "a story named emergence" I am fine with that.
But it's a story that no-one's telling.he Earth elements contained in my car are arranged to produce a function that the elements themselves do not have - which is why I do not argue that there is some property in sulfur, or carbon, or sand that dictates that it will self assemble into a car or a car engine or cd player.
To argue that carbon has a property for doing that on its own over time given enough carbon or ?? -- is simply "a story easy enough to tell".
Indeed, and no-one has claimed that it will.We have all already learned that a rock will not self-assemble into a rabbit.
You tell me - as I said, it's not difficult - I don't know why you have such trouble with it; unless, of course, you're just trolling.Where is the hard part of this concept?
And neither does anyone else.I don't actually claim "life must form" -- I am a creationist.
Non sequitur. Why should the emergence of life depend on something you are calling the "property" of electrons? And if electrons have this "property" why should that require that life emerge anywhere there are electrons?My argument is that if the issue is "the property" in the electron that then determines that life forms - then the fact that all planets have electrons means that all planets would have life. Obviously that is not the case when we make those "observations in nature" - but it makes for a "story" all the same.
Now you're just being silly.Can you think of any actual property that electrons have and then show that planets do not have it?? A statement of the form "Electrons have this certain property except on Mars where we do not see that at all"??
details.
What property is that?
(Spoiler alert: there isn't one.)
good point!
If there is a property about a neutron or electron or proton or electron shell that dictates that life must form - then all planets would have life -- even the moon - and even passing rocks (if they are large enough) would have life. What is more we could evaluate that "self-organizes-to-produce-life" property in the lab.
Computers are made from basic earth elements - but there is no "property" of matter that dictates that basic elements will self-organize into a computer over time.
But if such a property existed then all the planets would have computers.
So then - I fully agree with you that you are giving a perfect example of a "story easy enough to tell" but it is not science.
By saying life "must" form, you are telling a different story than science tells. .
And neither does anyone else.
Non sequitur.
Why should the emergence of life depend on something you are calling the "property"
Now you're just being silly.
-snip-
Logic and reason might look silly to a POV bias that is in favor of a "story" that cannot be supported
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?