The Big Bang Theory

[MarcusHill]

Because part of the whole is not the whole. The arm of a human is not a human. The jaw of a tiger is not a tiger. A single skin cell of a human is not a human. Or do you think that all the dead skin cells floating around in the air are dead humans?

Well, there are some people who seem to think that a handful of cells is a human...

 

[Tomk80]

Well, there are some people who seem to think that a handful of cells is a human...

But even then these people refer to a human in development. Even these people wouldn't go so far as to call a human skin cell a human.

 

[edrogati]

Been there. Done that. And, by the way, I am only being lazy in the sense that I don't want to write out all of my reasons here for believing it's false. That would take a number of pages worth of text.

Believing it to be false is one thing and I will never argue with you for coming to a belief. Stating something is false based on nothing but belief is what I'm quibbling with. I may discuss differing points of view on beliefs and disagree with yours but conclusively stating that your beliefs are false based on my own beliefs doesn't work.

As regarding evolution, I agree with much of it. What I believe in is a different originator of the mechanism or rather the fact that there is an originator at all. It's a belief. That life began with no originator and proceeded in that same manner is a statement based on a conviction (AKA a firmly held belief) based on disagreements on theology. So, beliefs can be powerful things. As stated before however, unless they have some sort of evidence backing them up, they will remain beliefs and nothing more substantial than that.

 

[Chalnoth]

Believing it to be false is one thing and I will never argue with you for coming to a belief. Stating something is false based on nothing but belief is what I'm quibbling with.

Ah, well, there you're just wrong. I'm applying tried and tested scientific rules to show that Christianity as well as all other religions are almost certainly false.

As regarding evolution, I agree with much of it. What I believe in is a different originator of the mechanism or rather the fact that there is an originator at all. It's a belief. That life began with no originator and proceeded in that same manner is a statement based on a conviction (AKA a firmly held belief) based on disagreements on theology. So, beliefs can be powerful things. As stated before however, unless they have some sort of evidence backing them up, they will remain beliefs and nothing more substantial than that.

You can claim that my position is based upon belief all you want. It doesn't make it any more true. In this case, for example, quite a lot of good work has already gone into showing that it is not only possible for life to form naturally, but it seems downright inevitable given the right conditions. From the current work in this field, there just isn't any reason to assume anything other than purely natural forces is in effect.

Of course, one could even argue that there's never any reason to assume otherwise, but I wouldn't go quite that far. There are some definite testable predictions from some god concepts (as well as other supernatural concepts). They turn out to be false, but there are at least ways, in principle, to test for some supernatural concepts.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm applying tried and tested scientific rules to show that Christianity as well as all other religions are almost certainly false.

You'll die of old age long before that ever happens, Chalnoth.

Let me help you out though --- start by building a machine that can do this:

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Viola

A 360 degrees cinema.

Lucy

 

[juvenissun]

Because part of the whole is not the whole. The arm of a human is not a human. The jaw of a tiger is not a tiger. A single skin cell of a human is not a human. Or do you think that all the dead skin cells floating around in the air are dead humans?

But when there was no human, but some single cells, How do you classify them? Nowhere? Don't we say they are animals in contrast to plants (single cells too)? We do not even say that they are cells, because there was nothing else around. Single cell was the only life form at that time.

Imagine that NASA discovered some cell fossils on Mars, what would be your first question? Would it be: what kind?

To fit theology into the discussion, my definition of plant is: cell or cells made of non-animal cells. Comment?

 

[atomweaver]

But when there was no human, but some single cells, How do you classify them? Nowhere? Don't we say they are animals in contrast to plants (single cells too)? We do not even say that they are cells, because there was nothing else around. Single cell was the only life form at that time.

Imagine that NASA discovered some cell fossils on Mars, what would be your first question? Would it be: what kind?

To fit theology into the discussion, my definition of plant is: cell or cells made of non-animal cells. Comment?

Too vague for scientific use; your definition includes fungi and algae, bacteria and viruses. For theological use, vague is, of course, preferred...

 

[Tomk80]

But when there was no human, but some single cells, How do you classify them?

In other groups. The living world contains a lot more than just plants, juvenissun. If an alge is not a plant (single celled), and not an animal (animals do not have cells with a cell wall), it is something else. It gets its own group.

Nowhere?

Depends on the organism. If it doesn't fit into any of the groups we have, it gets it's own.

Don't we say they are animals in contrast to plants (single cells too)?

Not necessarily, some single-celled organisms are animals, but not all single celled organisms are animals.

We do not even say that they are cells, because there was nothing else around. Single cell was the only life form at that time.

And?

Imagine that NASA discovered some cell fossils on Mars, what would be your first question? Would it be: what kind?

Sure. But if it is unlike any kind we know, it just gets its own. When we discovered a group of single celled organisms that looked like prokaryotes but weren't, they got their own name also. Archaea. They got their own group, because they weren't eukaryotes, but weren't prokaryotes either. And those were the only two overarching groups we had. If it doesn't belong in either of them, this means that there is a third group.

If we discover a fossil cell on Mars and it is not an archaea, not a prokaryote and not a eukaryote. I'd like extraterrestria, but if anyone has a good suggestion I'm all ears.

To fit theology into the discussion, my definition of plant is: cell or cells made of non-animal cells. Comment?

Why would we want to fit theology in the discussion. I can't think of a more useless exercise. There are more things on this earth than plants or animals. If the jews writing Genesis weren't aware of this, tough for them. Luckily, we've come a long way forward in our knowledge of the world since then.

 

[Naraoia]

But when there was no human, but some single cells, How do you classify them? Nowhere?

You classify them somewhere else. The living world need not be as simple as plants + animals.

Don't we say they are animals in contrast to plants (single cells too)? We do not even say that they are cells, because there was nothing else around. Single cell was the only life form at that time.

AFAIK "animals" as used in taxonomy are all multicellular, though that's just a matter of how large a branch of the tree of life you are willing to include. "Animals" and "plants" are concepts far older than any scientific classification, and the old assumptions they carry with them inevitably influence how they are defined in scientific classifications.

The fact that single-celled life was the only life form doesn't mean they weren't cells, just as it doesn't mean they weren't alive.

In any case, just two words are way too few to describe the diversity of life.

Imagine that NASA discovered some cell fossils on Mars, what would be your first question? Would it be: what kind?

Maybe. It can't be excluded that Martian life would be related to Earth life, and maybe the fossil cells could tell us something about that. They could also tell us something about how they lived and what their environment was like, which in turn could reveal something about life in general. But I wouldn't want to shoehorn them into Earth groups unless there's very good reason to.

To fit theology into the discussion, my definition of plant is: cell or cells made of non-animal cells. Comment?

As others have said, that includes a lot of things we wouldn't call plants. Bacteria and fungi are just the most well-known examples.

BTW, how does this definition "fit theology into the discussion"?

 

[Naraoia]

When we discovered a group of single celled organisms that looked like prokaryotes but weren't, they got their own name also. Archaea. They got their own group, because they weren't eukaryotes, but weren't prokaryotes either.

Well, they are prokaryotes. I've never heard of any of them having a nucleus They are just not bacteria.