There is only one "kind" of life

If that was too harsh let me know, silly i say.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
If that was too harsh let me know, silly i say.

Not too harsh. I saw this thread over a week ago, and this morning I decided to post the references to "kind" from the Bible with no intention of it providing "proof" of anything. I was just messing around. After all, thousandyoung's post said little else that would or could be considered relevant.

Originally posted by josephw
Not too harsh. I saw this thread over a week ago, and this morning I decided to post the references to "kind" from the Bible with no intention of it providing "proof" of anything. I was just messing around. After all, thousandyoung's post said little else that would or could be considered relevant.

Good on you then. Actually thousandyoung and twhitehead were both relentlessly beating the god drum, but it appears that that has changed a tiny wee bit. 😛

Originally posted by josephw
Ge 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Ge 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it ...[text shortened]... his kind,
De 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

i like yer style, if nothing else man.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Creationists often speak of "kinds" of life.

Well, there's only one kind. It's called cellular life.

Dogs are made of cells. So are cats, frogs, humans, and bacteria. That's it. Just one "kind".

Comments?

'Life' is a property of patterns. Any pattern which has the potential, under the right conditions, to throw off a more-or-less accurate copy of itself has the property that it is 'alive'.

Most of us are defined as patterns of matter, and throw off copies in due course.

Computer viruses may well be the first man-made life form.

Sterility: Most of the cells in a sterilized being are still capable of replication. As the components are alive, one must consider the whole alive.

Originally posted by spruce112358
'Life' is a property of patterns. Any pattern which has the potential, under the right conditions, to throw off a more-or-less accurate copy of itself has the property that it is 'alive'.

Most of us are defined as patterns of matter, and throw off copies in due course.

Computer viruses may well be the first man-made life form.

Sterility: Most o ...[text shortened]... till capable of replication. As the components are alive, one must consider the whole alive.

Computer 'viruses' are not alive, I am afraid to say.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
extremely sloppy argument, but i'll sugar coat it just the same for you. Specifically your egregious lack of knowledge concering the biological sciences, doesn't prove anything, let alone the existence or in this case the 'non-existence' of a supernatural divine entity, one which you have chosen to call god. Foolish illogical meanderings at best, and i d ...[text shortened]... boten und das ist für richtiger Idioten und Zahlenspiel sind sieben absoluter Nullpunkt.

I dont understand most of what you are saying and certainly don't speak German. But I am certain nonetheless that you have failed miserably to show that what I posted was either irrelevant or a strawman.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dont understand most of what you are saying and certainly don't speak German. But I am certain nonetheless that you have failed miserably to show that what I posted was either irrelevant or a strawman.

On the surface your retort seems sound, i "gleefully" mistook your statements as a blind endorsement of the quaint and morally derelict statements of athousandyoung. In other words i screwed up and i apologize to you and for overstepping any real or imagined boundaries here.

Originally posted by spruce112358
'Life' is a property of patterns. Any pattern which has the potential, under the right conditions, to throw off a more-or-less accurate copy of itself has the property that it is 'alive'.

Most of us are defined as patterns of matter, and throw off copies in due course.

Computer viruses may well be the first man-made life form.

Sterility: Most o ...[text shortened]... till capable of replication. As the components are alive, one must consider the whole alive.

Where'd you get that definition of "life"? I've never heard that one in my biology studies. Biology is, after all, the study of life.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
IF you decide to include viruses as life, then you'd have two kinds. However it's not standard practice to call them alive.

But even in this case, both are nucleic acid based "life". So how about this - there's only one kind of life; nucleic acid and protein based life. This then evolved into cellular life and non-cellular "life" as the first sp ...[text shortened]... m other branches; the mammals from the reptiles, the reptiles from the amphibians, etc.

That's a bit stuck-up isn't it? I mean, it only evolved that way here, and although that's the only observable type (so far), who says that our way is the ONLY way? There has to be some way to go without nucleic acid and proteins.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
That's a bit stuck-up isn't it? I mean, it only evolved that way here, and although that's the only observable type (so far), who says that our way is the ONLY way? There has to be some way to go without nucleic acid and proteins.

Again with the "you don't KNOW" stuff. You don't KNOW that God didn't create us all two second ago either. You don't KNOW that cells aren't really illusions that the tiny skin-elves project into our microscopes. You don't KNOW that there is life at all besides yourself.

And no, I don't know there isn't something else out there that replicates itself etc. and might intuitively seem to be life.

Case closed! Because any argument might be destroyed by hypothetically possible facts not in evidence, why bother to debate? It's all faith, right Uzu? Thus we can dismiss logic, fact and reason.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
That's a bit stuck-up isn't it? I mean, it only evolved that way here, and although that's the only observable type (so far), who says that our way is the ONLY way? There has to be some way to go without nucleic acid and proteins.

There has to be some way to go without nucleic acid and proteins.
You're absolutely right, Naruto-kun.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Where'd you get that definition of "life"? I've never heard that one in my biology studies. Biology is, after all, the study of life.

Irrelevant strawman, false dichotomy. 😉

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Thus we can dismiss logic, fact and reason.

False dichotomy; irrelevant strawman.
Wrong. You can go home and cry like a sissy boy, we can rightfully dismiss your incoherent and unfocused pseudo-religious ramblings. 😉

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Creationists often speak of "kinds" of life.

Well, there's only one kind. It's called cellular life.

Dogs are made of cells. So are cats, frogs, humans, and bacteria. That's it. Just one "kind".

Comments?

true enough--Sagan said in Cosmos that not only is our DNA "print" about 98% the same as a chimp, but didn't he also say we're about 75% the same as a tree? There's no conflict here with creationists--all life can be cell-based at the molecular level and still be classified as different forms. Man's molecular structure is simply the highest form of life on earth.