akhalteke

I disagree and believe that anyone who believes that they "know" beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know exactly what happened and how is: 1) A narcissistic fool 2) Is afraid that their delicate views of the way things are would be shattered if they were to think for themselves and use all information available to formulate their idea of what life is, what the meaning of it is and why we are here. This goes both ways. There are religious maniacs on both sides of the spectrum. Some religious maniacs choose God and some choose Darwin.

"Personally, I want a weak president" I can see why you support B-Ho.

It can be said verbatim about Obama as well. Perspective my dear lad.

That you have dismissed the possibility of the fallibility of the human mind is scary.

So why would you think I was capable of something superior when my postings have been so meager?

Why? Because you don't have me pegged as a bible thumper with no education? OK, have fun man!

Its not magic. Some, not I, believe that God is the one who imposed the laws and limitations to the Universe making live an eventuality. You love making these sweeping generalizations about people. There is a whole spectrum of beliefs from outright evolution, to Pantheism. Gaia, ID, outright creation. Those that claim they know the precise truth in anything are quite mistaken. I would suggest you open your mind and allow others to do the same. You are arrogant and elitist and the jury is still out whether there is cause.

Actually, the scientific community has had a working definition for what constitutes being alive for quite some time. You want short answer for a question that doesn't have one. I've asked a basic definitional question (which also doesn't have a short answer, but at least it has one) to assess your ability to meaningfully participate in a useful discussion. Otherwise, why waste our time? Clock's ticking. Quit nickle and diming and poking at it. Either admit you don't know or let's hear the complete answer. 1) made of 1 or more cells 2) contain DNA as genetic material 3) respond to stimuli 4) metabolize (take in energy and carbon and make waste) 5) reproduce 6) evolutionary change 1 year ago Source(s): "Biology", 5th edition; Campbell, Mitchell and Reece but wait, this doesn't include things that some scientists say are alive! Does that mean that I was right and that the scientific community is at odds? Face it Tvash, you are B.S.ing and you know it.

It is narcissism exemplified. TTK's hell will likely be an eternity alone in a room surrounded by mirrors. Either that, or free-will asked for and delivered is the reason for the evils in the Universe. Have you tried asking the big man himself; ya know, cut out the middle man so to speak?

I would also submit evolutionary change (or at least the possibility of said change).

I would say that reproduction would be a good one, though that it contested; as is metabolism.

If the scientific community cannot agree as a whole, I would humbly submit that I do not know. Now, have you had time to formulate your answer as to where and how life began? Or would you rather keep asking diversion questions in the hopes that I might be distracted?

Precisely. I have not denounced either him or his hypothesis. Tvash on the other hand has attacked me and the theory that he thinks I support. See? If we were nicer, we could have saved a page of semantics.

Right. So where did it start then and how? If you cannot answer this simple fundamental question, why should anyone believe you? You seem quite angry about my questions. Considering that I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design and merely providing social commentary about how abrasive you are, you might consider toning it down. I just find it ironic that you cannot even state the most fundamental principle of the theory that you think is the only possible solution to a given problem. It is a might hypocritical to bash people for not understanding the premises of their beliefs while you, yourself cannot do the same for your own. FWIW, scientists have been debating whether viruses were alive or not for quite some time. I don't really see what that has to do with the question I posed other than as a diversion. Can you answer the question yet?

I didn't look down on yours. I didn't even say what I believe. You interpolated. I merely stated that assuming that someone else was wrong despite the ability to state the rationale is idiotic. I think TVaskartakena has met the definition. Bubye for now. Gotta work.

You seem angry. Would you like to try and answer my question? Come back in a couple of years after you've done your homework. I did. Post-grad.

...and no. I don't think that a piece of granite is alive. Where are you going with this? I think you are interpolating a bit much here buddy.

If you still separate the universe into "alive" and "not alive", as if there is some magic ON switch, and simplistic idea which was abandoned many decades ago, and you don't have a clue about sub-cellular biology, then you're too ignorant to discuss the subject with anyone. Again, educate yourself so you can speak intelligently about it. There is a reason why more than a paragraph is required to explain it, so take some personal responsibility and go out there and get 'em, tiger. So that's a no?

You seem angry. Would you like to try and answer my question?

Abba, we aren't talking about religion.

It seems you are unable to answer the question in a way that would be defensible. I thought you might go with inorganic start (liposomes)but that isn't really all that defensible; certainly points to a Intelligent Design. But why not organic? Lets see. There is outer space (on the coat-tails of comets) but that still doesn't answer the question of how life started. Then there is the old "primordial soup" theory. Just mix a few key ingredients (UV light, amino acids, right temp, right PH and BOOM! Cells. So tell me. Which one do you subscribe to?

Well, would you like to explain how the first living thing got created? I would love to hear about it. Can't wait.

Ohhh can't wait to see the mounds of evidence you have to support this claim.

It is also quite daft to totally ignore the various issues there are to straight evolution. Hounding those who think they have a solution to the conundrum harks back to the days of those who believed the Earth was flat and burned those that did not concur.

Incidentally the one that it more apt to have a varicocele.