1. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Dec '08 09:04
    Palynka started up a very interesting thread, Thread 104839, in Science Forum. joe shmo was very quick to try to bring this thread off-topic by introducing spiritual aspects. I wouldn't want to go off-topic and I said so, which leaded to accusations about hipocracy and his line of discussion went further off-topic.

    Therefore I start this thread here so we can discuss the "spark of life" in the spiritual point of view. the scientific aspects of it in Science Forum and and spiritual aspects here in the Spiritual Forum. Good idea, isn't it?

    Since we don't know exactly what life is, then we start here.
    What is life? What differs life from non-life? What does it mean when something dies? If we find extra-terrestial 'life', how do we recognize it as life? Is there a 'spark of life' in spiritual terms in any life?, from human beings to insects, to bacteria and virus?, how about prions nad naked DNA?

    Is there really something as 'the spark of life'? Is it some energy, or spirit, or something? Is it magical, of is it real?

    Well, engage yourself in the question of 'spark of life'!
  2. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14511
    11 Dec '08 09:41
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Palynka started up a very interesting thread, Thread 104839, in Science Forum. joe shmo was very quick to try to bring this thread off-topic by introducing spiritual aspects. I wouldn't want to go off-topic and I said so, which leaded to accusations about hipocracy and his line of discussion went further off-topic.

    Therefore I start this ...[text shortened]... agical, of is it real?

    Well, engage yourself in the question of 'spark of life'!
    😵
  3. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    11 Dec '08 09:56
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Palynka started up a very interesting thread, Thread 104839, in Science Forum. joe shmo was very quick to try to bring this thread off-topic by introducing spiritual aspects. I wouldn't want to go off-topic and I said so, which leaded to accusations about hipocracy and his line of discussion went further off-topic.

    Therefore I start this ...[text shortened]... agical, of is it real?

    Well, engage yourself in the question of 'spark of life'!
    …Is there really something as 'the spark of life'? Is it some energy, or spirit, or something? Is it magical, of is it real? .…

    The answer to all those questions is “no” -to believe otherwise would to believe in a superstition.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Dec '08 10:232 edits
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…Is there really something as 'the spark of life'? Is it some energy, or spirit, or something? Is it magical, of is it real? .…

    The answer to all those questions is “no” -to believe otherwise would to believe in a superstition.[/b]
    lol, same old preconceptions, 'look I'm a scientist, you must believe me, because when i say something is, just the fact of me saying it is, means that it really is, because after all, I'm a scientist!'.
  5. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    11 Dec '08 11:45
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    lol, same old preconceptions, 'look I'm a scientist, you must believe me, because when i say something is, just the fact of me saying it is, means that it really is, because after all, I'm a scientist!'.
    Perhaps not, but scientists do have a better track record than theologians. If I'm a betting man and a scientist says something is caused by 'X', while a theologian says it is caused by 'Y', then my money goes on 'X'.
  6. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Dec '08 11:51
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Perhaps not, but scientists do have a better track record than theologians. If I'm a betting man and a scientist says something is caused by 'X', while a theologian says it is caused by 'Y', then my money goes on 'X'.
    Mine too. Scientists can always do experiments, christians look it up in their bible. If they don't find anything they just have the global answer "Because god wanted it to be that way".

    Scientists have searched for the 'spark of life', not found anything, which is not a proof by itself. So the question remains, what is that spark?
  7. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14511
    11 Dec '08 12:37
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Mine too. Scientists can always do experiments, christians look it up in their bible. If they don't find anything they just have the global answer "Because god wanted it to be that way".

    Scientists have searched for the 'spark of life', not found anything, which is not a proof by itself. So the question remains, what is that spark?
    But why Fabian have we to think this way?

    Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing; our current status of evolution keeps us chained over things we ignore, so it seems to me that for the moment we have to stop just at the point at which Life evolved from within pure energy.
    Or not?
  8. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    11 Dec '08 13:03
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Perhaps not, but scientists do have a better track record than theologians. If I'm a betting man and a scientist says something is caused by 'X', while a theologian says it is caused by 'Y', then my money goes on 'X'.
    The smart money looks at the argument and the evidence, not at the man.
  9. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    11 Dec '08 13:07
    Originally posted by black beetle
    But why Fabian have we to think this way?

    Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing; our current status of evolution keeps us chained over things we ignore, so it seems to me that for the moment we have to stop just at the point at which Life evolved from within pure energy.
    Or not?
    But why do we have to stop? 🙂
  10. Standard memberDaemon Sin
    I'm A Mighty Pirate™
    PaTROLLING the forum
    Joined
    01 Dec '04
    Moves
    36332
    11 Dec '08 13:09
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    lol, same old preconceptions, 'look I'm a scientist, you must believe me, because when i say something is, just the fact of me saying it is, means that it really is, because after all, I'm a scientist!'.
    As opposed to "it must be true as the code of beliefs developed from the moral interpretations of various translated stories written many years after the actual events guides me to believe that an unseen omnipotent power did it"?
  11. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    11 Dec '08 13:15
    Originally posted by Palynka
    The smart money looks at the argument and the evidence, not at the man.
    Yes, teacher, thank you for pointing out the obvious.
  12. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    11 Dec '08 13:20
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Yes, teacher, thank you for pointing out the obvious.
    Considering AH only asserted his position without an argument, you failed to see the obvious.
  13. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Dec '08 13:23
    Originally posted by black beetle
    But why Fabian have we to think this way?

    Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing; our current status of evolution keeps us chained over things we ignore, so it seems to me that for the moment we have to stop just at the point at which Life evolved from within pure energy.
    Or not?
    bb: "But why Fabian have we to think this way?"

    Do you mean 'the Fabian way' or do you mean 'the scientists way'? Or do you just mean 'the wrong way'?

    bb: "Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing"

    'Nothing' I wouldn't say, we know a lot. I'm not in the opinion that life began out of pure energy. For that we have to rely on a religious vew. (Therefore I created a new thread so we could discuss this with this view in mind.) So I would rather say, 'or not'. Or perhaps we are talking about chemical energy?, bindings and stuff? In that case... because 'life', as we know it, is chemical...
  14. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14511
    11 Dec '08 13:58
    Originally posted by Palynka
    But why do we have to stop? 🙂
    Fine Pal!

    We have to stop for a while in order to start thinking😵
  15. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14511
    11 Dec '08 14:03
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    bb: "But why Fabian have we to think this way?"

    Do you mean 'the Fabian way' or do you mean 'the scientists way'? Or do you just mean 'the wrong way'?

    bb: "Regarding the primal reason from which derives an existence we still now nothing"

    'Nothing' I wouldn't say, we know a lot. I'm not in the opinion that life began out of pure energy. For that w ...[text shortened]... dings and stuff? In that case... because 'life', as we know it, is chemical...
    I mean why do we have to limit ourselves. Over here we need Science as much as Philosophy

    I was specific regarding what we know and what we ignore. In fact the elements and the conditions required for the emanation of Life on Earth are going all the way back to the Big Bang. Whatever we know -any element/ prerequist/ conditions required for Life as we know it- derives from that singularity. Therefore, the "edge" of Life derives from there. This is all we know.
    Or do I miss something?
Back to Top