If the Sun creates life then...

[perspective@100]

Word......................

Ok I don't understand this, and I have a short temper already. Why The hell are you in my thread posting pictures of dumbass cartoon characters. Your so cool and clever you do this thinking your making some kind of point?
I see the point= immaturity

This is the social lounge. I'm being social and your just being an asshole who craves attention. If you agree with ktulu fine just say so, but let it stop there.
If you dont like this thread don't read it.

 

[fiat_money]

And I m saying these facts are not solidified in stone. I should not have to disprove them. And its ok if I don't believe them. And even without sufficient evidence I should be able to make my own presumptuous claims.

Yes, you can, that doesn't stop the claims from being conjecture or lacking substantiation.

No, I was assuming it was already a sandwhich. Your statement confused me a bit. Let me examine that premise again.
If a pork sandwhich requires pork or has pork in it then everything that has pork is a pork sandwhich? Is that what you stated?

I said:

..."If pork sandwiches require pork, then anything that has pork is a pork sandwich. Thus all pigs are pork sandwiches."...

Hmmm, thats not a true comparison since your using the "Sandwhich" which needs a combination of things when I'm saying the sun is alive as one single thing.

The comparison still stands, since I'm using the same flawed reasoning to parallel "pork sandwiches"--which need a combination of things--to "life"; which also needs a combination of things.

You keep stating these chemical/nuclear reactions and in my haste I have never corrected you. I dont believe the chemicals or the nuclear reactions are the cause of life at all. I'm stating the energy itself, is alive. We have a different view of the sun. I see energy and you see explanations made by scientist.

The energy responsible for, within, and produced by the Sun, comes in various forms--luminous, radiant, electric, magnetic, chemical, heat, nuclear, etc.--and are results of chemical/nuclear processes. So, chemical/nuclear processes can't necessarily be isolated from energy here.

 

[soul rattler]

You ask me what makes the facts bullshit? They are not logical.

I have come to realize people are actually not blind to the truth but they are deaf, dumb, and blind to it.

bwahahahahahahahahaha

 

[The Prime Minister]

Ok I don't understand this, and I have a short temper already. Why The hell are you in my thread posting pictures of dumbass cartoon characters. Your so cool and clever you do this thinking your making some kind of point?
I see the point= immaturity

This is the social lounge. I'm being social and your just being an asshole who craves attention. If you agree with ktulu fine just say so, but let it stop there.
If you dont like this thread don't read it.

Your retarded understanding of basic science only reminds me of our failing public schools, and if you don't know what's up with the green lantern then you already failed at life.

I can't help you.

And BTW your perspective is wack.

 

[perspective@100]

Yes, you can, that doesn't stop the claims from being conjecture or lacking substantiation.

Your saying my claims are conjecture and lacking substatiation as if I have to prove they are not.These words make you seem judgemental.
They make my claims seem irrevlevant. They make it seem as if you have a negative disposition on my thought process. It also makes you seem as if your looking down on me. These words also imply your side or stand point is unequivocally right, which is not always the case with science.
These so called facts you base your thoughts on are not your own. You believe them so much your defending them on an internet forum.
From my own experience sometimes you can believe things so much that the obvious is not so apparent. I wish life were simple and could be explained with terms easily as science does but the fact is science is just science. Its accumulated observed data that has been tested in experiments only to gain results that "we" like to call facts.

The comparison still stands, since I'm using the same flawed reasoning to parallel "pork sandwiches"--which need a combination of things--to "life"; which also needs a combination of things.

This is where we disagree, and may have to agree to disagree. Life in "your" eyes needs a combination of things. In my eyes energy is life.

The energy responsible for, within, and produced by the Sun, comes in various forms--luminous, radiant, electric, magnetic, chemical, heat, nuclear, etc.--and are results of chemical/nuclear processes. So, chemical/nuclear processes can't necessarily be isolated from energy here.

I'm aware of the various forms of energy but from my so called "flawed reasoning" I can deduct that every form of it is made from the same building blocks of smaller energy. I can make these statements with absolute certainty without being a physicist, and all I'm doing is thinking about it.
My reasoning is Logical.

 

[perspective@100]

bwahahahahahahahahaha

I know I should ignore this banter but if you never heard people use phrases like:

"she not ugly, she ugly as fu*k"

or

"Soul Rattler is not dumb, no, no, he's a dumb fu*kin idiot"

What can I say, but your a dumb fu*kin idiot

bwahahahahahahahahaha

Your retarded understanding of basic science only reminds me of our failing public schools, and if you don't know what's up with the green lantern then you already failed at life.

I can't help you.

And BTW your perspective is wack.

Sticks and stones my friend, and no YOU never could...

Nice Jay-Z ref tho.....HOV!

don't worry this thread will fade to black soon enough

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

baseless conjecture.

Conjecture is fun.

 

[jonlakadeadmic]

why are you so upset with science? what did science ever do to you man.....

 

[perspective@100]

why are you so upset with science? what did science ever do to you man.....

Haha, I don't know. One day I just woke up like this is all bullshit and no one could tell me different. Its like when you discover Santa' Clause has been dead for hundreds of years. I was 5. Saw the history documentery on tv. Couldn't believe my parents were such liars, lol

 

[fiat_money]

Your saying my claims are conjecture and lacking substatiation as if I have to prove they are not.These words make you seem judgemental.
They make my claims seem irrevlevant. They make it seem as if you have a negative disposition on my thought process. It also makes you seem as if your looking down on me. These words also imply your side or stand point is unequivocally right, which is not always the case with science.
These so called facts you base your thoughts on are not your own. You believe them so much your defending them on an internet forum.
From my own experience sometimes you can believe things so much that the obvious is not so apparent. I wish life were simple and could be explained with terms easily as science does but the fact is science is just science. Its accumulated observed data that has been tested in experiments only to gain results that "we" like to call facts.

I can't say I care how you perceive what I'm saying. I hear alternative scientific theories all the time, such as the potential relativity of the fine-structure constant. If one happens to be unsubstantiated/baseless, I won't hesitate to point it out. However, if the theory seems plausible and is supported with observations/measurements/calculations, I'll consider that it may be true. Yours is flawed logically and scientifically, so I have no problem pointing that out.

This is where we disagree, and may have to agree to disagree. Life in "your" eyes needs a combination of things. In my eyes energy is life.

You can view life as whatever you want, just as someone else can view pigs as sandwiches.

I'm aware of the various forms of energy but from my so called "flawed reasoning" I can deduct that every form of it is made from the same building blocks of smaller energy. I can make these statements with absolute certainty without being a physicist, and all I'm doing is thinking about it.
My reasoning is Logical.

No, as shown with the "pork sandwich" example and the other examples, the "If X is a result of a process/processes involving Y, then all Y are able to X." argument is an excellent example of flawed reasoning. The flaw doesn't come from saying organisms are compiled of smaller "building blocks"; but from saying "Because organisms are composed of building blocks, the building blocks must also be organisms.". It's a flaw in basic syllogism.

Proper syllogistic argument:
All bloops are razzies.
All razzies are lazzies.
Therefore, all bloops are lazzies.

Flawed syllogistic argument:
All bloops are razzies.
All razzies are lazzies.
Therefore, all lazzies are bloops.

Your reasoning:
All organisms are composed of building blocks.
All organisms are/were alive.
Therefore, all building blocks are alive.

Whether you substitute "building blocks" with "energy", "atoms", or "matter"; the conclusion is still a flawed one.

 

[perspective@100]

@fiat_money,

No, its logical. Life from no life is flawed. If your so sure tell me exactly at what point life begins?

That whole pig sandwhich crap is NOT a valid comparison. Scientist make observations like mine all the time.
For example all living creatures have carbon molecules, so all living creatures are carbon based life forms. Have they seen and examined all living things? No, but we accept this as fact.

Your just exagerrating the data presented to you so it makes sense in your head that my reasoning is flawed.
Then your creating these rediculous arguements that make no sense. I dont know anything about syllogistic arguements, but they do not apply here.
A pig is not a sandwhich.

 

[fiat_money]

@fiat_money,

No, its logical. Life from no life is flawed.

By this same flawed reasoning, humans from non-humans is also flawed; therefore all atoms that compose humans must be humans as well. This is clearly incorrect, since atoms are not humans. But it shows the good thing about flawed logic; which is that the flaw presents itself in an infinite number of examples.

If your so sure tell me exactly at what point life begins?

Why? The uncertainty of abiogenesis doesn't disprove modern biology.

Scientist make observations like mine all the time.
For example all living creatures have carbon molecules, so all living creatures are carbon based life forms. Have they seen and examined all living things? No, but we accept this as fact.

No, "we" don't, with the innumerable amount of planets in the universe, and the many unknown organisms on Earth alone, I only accept that all known organisms are carbon-based as fact. For me to say otherwise would be "carbonally" chauvinistic.

Your just exagerrating the data presented to you so it makes sense in your head that my reasoning is flawed.
Then your creating these rediculous arguements that make no sense. .

Exactly. And since these examples use the same reasoning as your own, it's no wonder it is also flawed.

I dont know anything about syllogistic arguements, but they do not apply here.
A pig is not a sandwhich.

Agreed, since your argument is not syllogistically sound. And, despite what your usage of flawed reasoning may suggest, pigs are not sandwiches; because simply being a component of something does not mean that the components have all of the same qualities as that which they compose.

 

[gns]

i like the social lounge.

 

[desertrain10]

according to modern day science... the sun cannot reproduce (in respect to the textbook definition of the word)... and therefore it is not alive. lol. however it is conceivable that there is some form of life in the universe, entirely unlike creatures on earth. we have so much to learn still ...*shrugs*

its always good to keep an open mind about these things so whose to say you're wrong

 

[Jabu_Rule]

A log is a house. Paper is a book. Diamonds are shiny, therefore gold nuggets are diamonds.

 

[b*braze]

i like the social lounge.

******************

lol... yes

 

[b*braze]

Listen, I'm not here to argue with anyone, but I'm not here to be called a moron either. Ya'll got me fu*ked up.

You ask me what makes the facts bullshit? They are not logical. Life from no life makes no sense and criteria for life is always under scrutiny. So I ask you, why accept these "facts"? All of the responses I get are scientific. I understand science but how about people start thinking for themselves for a change. Come up with an idea. Dare to be different. Talking to people about "science" is like talking to a bunch of sheep. "Science says this, science says that" well no need for anybody to make there own conclusions lets just see what science has to say. Science is a study of trying to understand. I can try and understand myself and not be scientific. Why cant I try and understand nature and not be scientific? There are no difinitive rules in nature that says everything must be understood scientifically or it does not apply. Those rules of science are only from our society. It seems we as a society have gone from believing these rediculous stories told in the bible to being pawns for these scientific nerds who try and confuse you with enormous words and extremely complex math equations.

exactly. so why are you so opposed to it?

Sorry I just don't buy it. Ever since I was young I have always been true to myself and spoke my mind. I have come to realize people are actually not blind to the truth but they are deaf, dumb, and blind to it. Not only that, they will refuse to be subject to anything that takes them out of their comfort zone. So while you think people like me are morons or what not, how do you think I view you? (no offense) I sit back and watch a society of sheep. Shopping when the economy tells you to shop- X-mas, and other holidays. Eating foods that will kill you- the food pyramids that have been given to us over the years. Doctors who don't cure anything and perscribe medicines that do more harm than good. Politicians who are hypocrites and do nothing for the masses while blatently lying to your face. Scientist who can discover a galaxy 100 trillion years away but cant cure cancer. Wtf, If these "facts" you speak of come from these people, you can have them!

this has nothing to do with thesubject so... skip

The "facts" are not bullshit because I say so. The facts are bullshit because they are not facts at all. They are collections of data with similar results. Those are "scientific facts" and yes sometimes they are wrong, and that is a "FACT".

so when dealing with a scientific subject, we should throw all scientific facts out the window? ok. got it.

 

[b*braze]

nothing wrong with challenging facts, as science encourages this... but what do you have to back up your claims/conclusions? what are you bringing to the table besides "i woke up one day and decided it was all bullshit."

sorry id rather rely on "collections of data with similar results" then some dude going with his gut feelings.

 

[fiat_money]

nothing wrong with challenging facts, as science encourages this... but what do you have to back up your claims/conclusions? what are you bringing to the table besides "i woke up one day and decided it was all bullshit."

sorry id rather rely on "collections of data with similar results" then some dude going with his gut feelings.

Highly-cosignable post.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

fiat has a lot of patience