Statistics, God and Estimating

[Leo123]

Oh boy, here we go with the clueless creationist bullshit again.

Doofus, look around. What do you see? ALL LIFE EVERYWHERE was created completely from nonliving chemicals. There isn't any other kind.

What did you think life was created from? Green cheese?

You people don't realize how stupid you sound sometimes. Here's a hint: it always happens when you try to claim scientific validity.

Then why can’t we take those nonliving chemicals and create that life? Can you also stop with the abusive language?

 

[Robert W]

Who created God

Another GOD.

 

[alang1216]

They used an existing cell.

They were in a hurry and didn't want to wait a billion years. Doesn't change the self-replication.

 

[Hafar1014]

Another GOD.

Who created that God hint hint its a paradox there is no answer

 

[scruffy]

Who created that God hint hint its a paradox there is no answer

Rampant speculation.

Is not science.

 

[Leo123]

They were in a hurry and didn't want to wait a billion years. Doesn't change the self-replication.

They did not create a self-replicating, living cell.

 

[alang1216]

They did not create a self-replicating, living cell.

The cell is your strawman. To me, something is alive if it is subject to the forces of evolution even if it is a single molecule.

 

[Leo123]

The cell is your strawman. To me, something is alive if it is subject to the forces of evolution even if it is a single molecule.

Tou can make up your own definition but, the scientific definition of life is a living cell not synthetic mrna.

 

[scruffy]

The cell is your strawman.

No kidding. Not going down that road again. Waste of time.

 

[Leo123]

Life is basically a living cell:

• Cellular organization – Made of one or more cells
• Metabolism – Uses energy to maintain internal order
• Homeostasis – Maintains stable internal conditions
• Growth and development – Changes over time according to genetic instructions
• Reproduction – Can produce offspring (directly or indirectly)
• Response to stimuli – Reacts to the environment
• Evolution – Populations change genetically over generations

 

[alang1216]

Tou can make up your own definition but, the scientific definition of life is a living cell not synthetic mrna.

NASA would disagree:

• NASA defines life as "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution". Developed in the 1990s, this "working definition" helps astrobiologists and researchers search for life beyond Earth by focusing on systems that can metabolize, reproduce, and adapt.
  
  Key components of this definition include:
  • • Self-sustaining chemical system: Life requires energy and molecular components from its environment to maintain itself without external supervision.
    • Darwinian evolution: The system must be capable of reproduction, mutation, and heredity, allowing it to adapt over generations.
• 
  This definition is not "written in stone" but serves as a guide for detecting life that may be very different from that on Earth.

 

[Leo123]

NASA would disagree:

• NASA defines life as "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution". Developed in the 1990s, this "working definition" helps astrobiologists and researchers search for life beyond Earth by focusing on systems that can metabolize, reproduce, and adapt.
  
  Key components of this definition include:
  • • Self-sustaining chemical system: Life requires energy and molecular components from its environment to maintain itself without external supervision.
    • Darwinian evolution: The system must be capable of reproduction, mutation, and heredity, allowing it to adapt over generations.
• 
  This definition is not "written in stone" but serves as a guide for detecting life that may be very different from that on Earth.

Yes, NASA is describing a living cell

 

[alang1216]

Yes, NASA is describing a living cell

Nope. The description is purposely not limited to living cells, no matter how much you wish it was.

 

[Leo123]

Nope. The description is purposely not limited to living cells, no matter how much you wish it was.

The only self sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution is a living cell here on Earth. Your deflection to NASA’s theory is weak and there is 0 proof.

 

[alang1216]

The only self sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution is a living cell here on Earth. Your deflection to NASA’s theory is weak and there is 0 proof.

A weak scientific theory is one that is based on a single example, e.g., life on today's Earth.

 

[Hollie]

God is not a miracle?

Which gods?

 

[Hollie]

A weak scientific theory is one that is based on a single example, e.g., life on today's Earth.

A weak religion is one which relies on unsupported claims of miracles and supernaturalism.

Provide an example of either.

 

[Hollie]

Another GOD.

Thus a never ending hierarchy of gods.

 

[Robert W]

Thus a never ending hierarchy of gods.

Let me explain why I said that. When looking up at the night sky, are you able to count the stars? Estimates are there are billions of them. I can't promise there is more than one god among equals, but at least I can to understand hnow billions orf stars can all happen by one GOD. Now as you shop at supermarkets, you would laugh at anybody who told you t hat only one supermarket is possible. Parents with children do not imagine they have one parent, why can't there be like parents, more GODS. all equal as they are?

 

[scruffy]

Thus a never ending hierarchy of gods.

Kind of like those Russian dolls.