There is only one "kind" of life

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
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.

The conflict is with creationists who believe there was no common ancestor for both cats and dogs, for example.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
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 it ...[text shortened]... her to debate? It's all faith, right Uzu? Thus we can dismiss logic, fact and reason.

I think UzumakiAi had a very good point.
1. We know of only one life form.
2. We have not yet found any convincing evidence that life does not exist on other planets in the solar system. Only the moon has been studied to a detail that would allow us to reasonably assume that it doesn't harbor biological life.
3. There are billions of stars in the galaxy and billions of galaxies. We know that there are probably planets around a high proportion of those stars.
4. We cannot see any of those planets directly and hence cannot really make any reasonable conclusion about the possibility of life on them. Keep in mind that even though we have sent spacecraft to mars we haven't yet ruled out the possibility of life there - how much less do we know about a planet we can only detect by the wobble of its sun?

In other words, the only reasons why we should claim that non-biological life is not possible are:
1. We cant imagine it - ie we have not been able to identify suitable complex chemical reactions /compounds.
2. We haven't observed it in our tiny tiny corner of the universe.

Of course the main reason to rule out non-biological life is because we have defined life as biological - but that tells us nothing about complex self-replicating creatures.

Originally posted by serigado
[b]There has to be some way to go without nucleic acid and proteins.
You're absolutely right, Naruto-kun.[/b]

What way is that?

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Irrelevant strawman, false dichotomy. 😉

What? What strawman? I asked you a very specific question. Where did you get your definition of life, and why was I not exposed to it in my university studies in the science of life?

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Irrelevant strawman, false dichotomy. 😉

What dichotomy? What are the two options I am suggesting, and what are the ones I am not considering?

In any case, I don't think that hypothetical silicon based Freebles on the planet Mohajoobib are what are being referred to in Genesis 1 (for example, 1:21, 1:24, 1:25).

This is, after all, the Spirituality forum. Even if all these unsupported speculations have some potential merit, they aren't really addressing the topic. Genesis refers to cellular life and implies that different forms of cellular life had no common ancestors.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What? What strawman? I asked you a very specific question. Where did you get your definition of life, and why was I not exposed to it in my university studies in the science of life?

Wrong. And what you have written here is again irrelevant, a worthless strawman, a red herring, a what-have-you. Only YOUR fuzzy and poorly defined inflexible definition for life is worthy of consideration, everything else is fake. And i could just as easily ask you the same tired, dull and pointless questions, but i don't for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What dichotomy? What are the two options I am suggesting, and what are the ones I am not considering?

In any case, I don't think that hypothetical silicon based Freebles on the planet Mohajoobib are what are being referred to in Genesis 1 (for example, 1:21, 1:24, 1:25).

This is, after all, the Spirituality forum. Even if all these unsupported s ...[text shortened]... rs to cellular life and implies that different forms of cellular life had no common ancestors.

You're making it up as you go along, rather silly and unscientific.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Wrong. And what you have written here is again irrelevant, a worthless strawman, a red herring, a what-have-you. Only YOUR fuzzy and poorly defined inflexible definition for life is worthy of consideration, everything else is fake. And i could just as easily ask you the same tired, dull and pointless questions, but i don't for obvious reasons.

You're making no sense. You're throwing around logic lingo improperly as though you think it will intimidate me or make you seem smart or something.

It's not MY definition of life. It's BIOLOGY'S definition of life.

What exactly am I wrong about?

Pointless inquiry/red herring; appeal to emotion. 😉

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Pointless inquiry/red herring; appeal to emotion. 😉

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were having a discussion. I didn't realize you were working your way through your Logic 101 Fallacies flash cards.

I'm not going to hold your hand in this discussion, what you have expressed here is merely a preferred form of religious bigotry, with a generous helping of disinformation thrown in for good measure.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
I'm not going to hold your hand in this discussion, what you have expressed here is merely a preferred form of religious bigotry, with a generous helping of disinformation thrown in for good measure.

You have to be willing, to have a discussion. You're not discussing anything. You refuse to enter into the discussion instead you throw out insults, accusations, and disinformation yourself in an attempt to put yourself "above" the discussion.

For the record, evolution is a theory, nothing more, nothing less. Science is composed of theories. Theories stand the test of time until a new theory comes along and builds upon or replaces the existing one.

There was a theory that the world was flat, and another that the universe revolved around our planet. Both have been proven wrong and replaced with more accurate theories. This is a continual process as humankind expands it's knowledge.

Where you run into trouble, is when you start teaching theories as fact and refuse to accept the possiblity of alternate theories. Science is all about consesus. Scientific advance is all about challenging the consesus. Religion on the other hand is all about belief and faith, which is what science becomes when you start making theories out to be irrefutable facts.

I personally believe in the God of the Bible. I accept science as the current undertanding of the nature of our physical existence.
🙂

Originally posted by tnetcenter
You have to be willing, to have a discussion. You're not discussing anything. You refuse to enter into the discussion instead you throw out insults, accusations, and disinformation yourself in an attempt to put yourself "above" the discussion.

For the record, evolution is a theory, nothing more, nothing less. Science is composed of theories. Theori ...[text shortened]... . I accept science as the current undertanding of the nature of our physical existence.
🙂

You obviously don't know what religious bigotry is, but you have provided a very good example of that. Your critical thinking skillz are non-existent, obviously the simplest of ideas are beyond your comprehension. 🙄

Originally posted by tnetcenter
There was a theory that the world was flat, and another that the universe revolved around our planet. Both have been proven wrong and replaced with more accurate theories. This is a continual process as humankind expands it's knowledge.

you can't have it both ways, either you believe in science or you don't. and you admitting that religion is just a theory is just plain silly, you have contradicted yourself here.

If science was just a theory, then you wouldn't be using the keyboard at your computer, there would be no internet, you wouldn't have GPS systems at the ready in your gas efficient vehicle, you wouldn't have this hullabaloo about global warming, you wouldn't have google maps and google earth, you wouldn't have advanced medical imaging systems, you wouldn't have a government that is fond of using advanced "tactical" weapons on primitive tribes and pre-western civilizations. 😕

But to keep it simple... YOU cannot prove the existence of your invisible supernatural entity, that is something that is clearly beyond your intuitive grasp. So the vast majority of what you have expressed here is just hypocritical and meaningless child-like spew.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
You obviously don't know what religious bigotry is, but you have provided a very good example of that. Your critical thinking skillz are non-existent, obviously the simplest of ideas are beyond your comprehension. 🙄

This is exactly what I'm talking about - you insult my intelligence, accuse me of bigotry, and belittle my thinking ability. All without actually addressing anything I said in my message.