A Message for the Pseudo- Christians......

Philosophy, maybe comparative religion. I would say mythology, but I know that many would be offended by the implication.

I agree. Everything in it's proper place. I think a comparative religion class would be a good idea in any case.

The big bang theory is just that, don't you think? There are some that see evidence in their theory to suggest that it is so. The other on creation is based on faith, which is much like a theory no? Whether it is science based or faith based is the struggle, and I believe each deserves face time. The hardest part for some is to constantly defend the right to have faith.

The other on creation is based on faith, which is much like a theory no?

No. There is a huge difference between a belief and a scientific theory. A theory is not just a hunch, as used in common vernacular, but is based on repetitive research.

Then let me ask you a question please. The scientific theory is based on particles coming together both in gas and matter. We have to have faith that they came from somewhere don't we? We cannot prove their origin from the beginning of time perhaps billions or trillions of years ago, or what part of space or time of origination. It is not always what we see, but we have not seen yet that holds all of the answers.

The other on creation is based on faith, which is much like a theory no?

Add another one to the "no" pile. For the millionth time. That whole word equivalency game is old, and very tired.

Take the word "reduction", for a benign example:

• To my profession, it is a subtraction from a numerical value.
• To a chef, it is a process of evaporating water out of a sauce.
• To my orthopedic surgeon, it is flattening out my displaced fracture.

Why is it so hard to get that "theory" in science means something different than the same word used outside of science?

AlanG

I didn't mean to offend. Would you prefer if I used a different word? Perhaps if I used the word opinion would you not be so offended?

No faith required. We simply don't know yet.

didn't mean to offend. Would you prefer if I used a different word?

Not offended, just irritated. The semantic games just aren't necessary. The use of theory in science simply cannot be applied to creationism because creationism is not science, and can never be science. That isn't a dig at creationism, they are simply uncomparable items. It is impossible to make creationism a science by placing the word theory in it. One is science, one is not science. The one that is not science has no business in a science class, just like math has no business being taught in philosophy class.

And the one that is science does not even yet address origin, because origin cannot be tested (yet).

AlanG and Baron Von Steuben

No one is arguing the point about the ability to test what is unknown yet. Yet you believe these particles have always existed. Does that sound vaguely familiar somehow?

Personally I agree that the two are so far different in opinion, the methods of teaching and classification do need to be seperate.

Then let me ask you a question please. The scientific theory is based on particles coming together both in gas and matter. We have to have faith that they came from somewhere don't we? We cannot prove their origin from the beginning of time perhaps billions or trillions of years ago, or what part of space or time of origination. It is not always what we see, but we have not seen yet that holds all of the answers.

I can answer that with 1 word and have it literally represent every aspect you speak of:

Energy

No one is arguing the point about the ability to test what is unknown yet. Yet you believe these particles have always existed. Does that sound vaguely familiar somehow?

No body stated that x particles have always existed. And time has to do with time particle dilation. You can review that here:

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_news/2011/06/22/6913696-time-the-godly-impossible-creation

Or if you are further interested you can read this article:

Information: The material physical Cause of causation

And if you ask me where energy came from, all I have to do is ask you what is energy made of? Well, it's energy, and so are you!

What is the point of arguing origins when we cannot prove or disprove that we were not "created" five seconds ago with a history that never actually happend?

However, if any of you want to challenge science, you can begin with using the scientific method in validating the existence of a GOD, or your beliefs if you want it to be in taught as a "theory".. And so far nobody seems able to do so in this thread:

The Challenge to Theists: Evidence of GOD?

Even immateriality seems to have a problem here:

Immateriality: The Fallacy of Magical Nothing!

However, this doesn't mean there wasn't a creator to "This" Universe by some intelligent being, beings, or species at the instant before the fracturing of symmetry to where one force became four... It's not that Atheists like myself don't think of the possibility, it's that we would never worship something as a GOD. We may ourselves create a Universe one day through mini black holes and a repulsive force of a vacuum.

What is the point of arguing origins when we cannot prove or disprove that we were not "created" five seconds ago with a history that never actually happend?

Your origin will always be what you are made of. That is where you came from, and ultimately what you are. And we aren't made of "nothing".. The process is rather irrelevant whether that be Emergent or created. There is little difference, and you could never actually be literally created since creation can only ever at best equate to creative material physical manipulation. Hence, there is no fundamental difference between an ant constructing tunnels, man building sky scrapers, painters painting a picture, or snow flakes naturally forming complex structures out of a system of chaos from which order arises from. It's all material physical phenomenon, energy, or at best material physical manipulation of what already exists..

Hence, a painter can't actually create the energy from which their paint is made of, and neither can an ant create the soil it digs in. Sky scrapers are not built from the creation of each atom, or from nothing either...

The lesson is..., nothing can't be used, exist, be a substance, object, thing, entity, or be molded into anything. Thus if you can understand the links and information in post #2.16 , you will understand why that is.

Challenge science you say? No, I do not "challenge" science. Unless, of course, you view putting it into it's proper context as "challenging" it. Or view that any theistic stance is a inherently unscientific stance. The latter I'd argue is only half correct. I'd argue that both are in fact unscientific so pretending that science is inherently "on your side" is little more than a shallow excuse to justify your own inductive reasoning. Which both absolutists types are very guilty of.

My question still stands though sir.

BTW, this is also a good article below to which goes into information theory, a common discussion about creationism. It's seen as the very back bone of "Creationism". However it's easily debunked by it's out argument:

Information: The material physical Cause of causation

--

Challenge science you say? No, I do not "challenge" science. Unless, of course, you view putting it into it's proper context as "challenging" it. Or view that any theistic stance is a inherently unscientific stance. The latter I'd argue is only half correct. I'd argue that both are in fact unscientific so pretending that science is inherently "on your side" is little more than a shallow excuse to justify your own inductive reasoning. Which both absolutists types are very guilty of.

Everything I've posted has a solid basis in science. Perhaps you can outline for me what is half correct? I don't even need to use science to debunk most theistic stances btw. I only need to address the logical fallacies within them, and I use science, logic, reason, common sense, deduction, the application of infinite regress, and information theory.. Most theistic stances aren't even hard to debunk.. But you will find information theory for example pretty impossible to debunk.

@TheJackel:

Yet the atheistic stance is logically falacious. Go figure. :D

Yet the atheistic stance is logically falacious. Go figure. :D

Incorrect.. You haven't shown any stance I've made to be anywhere close to "fallacious".. But you can feel free to try. You can begin with information theory, complexity, and what is required to support a conscious state. Just for starters ;)

I would strongly suggest reading the posted articles on both immateriality, and information theory before attempting an argument.

Actually. I repeatedly have if I remember correctly. But just for the sake of argument and in case I am wrong. I will do so again.

You are no doubt familiar with Argumentum ad Ignoratum?

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

Well, yea, as I just pointed out. It cuts both ways. Taking either stance is logically falacious. Or are you now going to claim a special case in which, somehow, a argument that is logically flawed is somehow logical?

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

This is not an appeal to ignorance..., yours is however ;) And btw, when it deals with information theory, you have a stance regardless of your position. You did not by any means circumvent the subject or argument by posting a definition of a fallacy that is not applicable in this subject matter. It in fact can only at best prove the premise of the argument I've made. lesson, don't use information to argue against information theory.

Btw that includes immateriality to which is subject to capacity. This in which is also directly related to information theory. When I said you ought read the material before responding, I wasn't kidding ;)

You might want to try again.

@TheJackel:

This is not an appeal to ignorance..., yours is however

Really. How so?

And btw, when it deals with information theory, you have a stance regardless of your position.

Yes I know you keep trying to vainly interject your articles into the conversation. But what you are failing to notice, most likely intentionally, is that I am not talking about that your articles.

Now, if you will kindly come off that one track or take leave of the conversation I would be much obliged. Otherwise this will continue to track off into absurdity with you at the lead.

Really. How so?

Should be quite obvious.. Your own post was an appeal to ignorance. It was pretty much irony in every way.

Yes I know you keep trying to interject your articles into the conversation.

My articles are completely relevant to the conversation. Not sure if you are comprehending the context of the discussions above, but it might be a good idea to try and put the context of those in reference to the articles I posted.

So far all I've seen you post is assertions of something being "fallacious", or that it's fallacious to be on any one side of the argument. And yet, you have done nothing to show the validity of that position to which seems to be quite fallacious all on it's own. It's quite Ironic really. And sadly quite easily taken down just by mere use of information theory.

@TheJackel:

Should be quite obvious.. Your own post was an appeal to ignorance. It was pretty much irony in every way.

Once again. How so? How is repeating the bare assertion as obvious proving it?

What you appear to not comprehending is that I am asserting that science is not inherently atheistic as you appear to believe.

BTW Wraith, this is the more interesting part. I don't even need to go that far, I only need pure opinion to debunk religious or theistic stances of a GOD's existence when such things are only ever at best concepts of pure opinion, and titles of opinion. What is a GOD if not worshiped as such? Funny how that pretty much collapses the whole concept to where either all thing are GOD's, can be GOD's, or there are no such things as GOD's... That includes existence itself in it's entirety. Even Pantheism out ranks the Christian GOD concept. Even Solipsism will easily suffice. It is thus entirely moot. Once you reach the top of the pecking order and just call existence itself GOD, it pretty much collapses.

Once again. How so? How is repeating the bare assertion as obvious proving it?

First of all, I came no where close to spreading a "bare assertion".. Please try again.

What you appear to not comprehending is that I am asserting that science is not inherently atheistic as you appear to believe.

I never made the claim it was.. I at best made a claim that it can be.

@TheJackel:

BTW Wraith, this is the more interesting part. I don't even need to go that far, I only need pure opinion to debunk religious or theistic stances of a GOD's existence when such things are only ever at best concepts of pure opinion, and titles of opinion.

And your opinion does not take universal preeminence, sorry. No one's does.

What is a GOD if not worshiped as such?

The concept of an entity or "creator" being does not directly mean it needs, wants, or expects worship. Worship is based on the assumption of an expectation. It's not central to the concept of a "god".

Funny how that pretty much collapses the whole concept to where either all thing are GOD's, can be GOD's, or there are no such things as GOD's... That includes existence itself in it's entirety. Even Pantheism out ranks the Christian GOD concept. Even Solipsism will easily suffice. It is thus entirely moot. Once you reach the top of the pecking order and just call existence itself GOD, it pretty much collapses.

Collapses nothing considering, like I said, the idea that a "god" wants, needs, or expects worship is not central to the concept of a "god". Very humanocentric to assume otherwise.

First of all, I came no where close to spreading a "bare assertion".. Please try again.

Uh yes you did. I asked you to point out exactly I was making a argumentum ad ignoratum. Which you have thus far failed to do, except of course to assert that it's obvious. Bare assertion.

The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.

SOURCE

Now, please tell me. Where, exactly, did I assert that something was true because it has not been proven to be false or was false because it has not been proven true?

And your opinion does not take universal preeminence, sorry. No one's does.

Sure it does.. it's called Solipsism. And even despite this, the very fact you would imply that no opinion takes "universal preeminence" does make the subject entirely moot even though that is false. More specifically, it only takes one opinion to suggest existence itself is GOD to make everything GOD.. This then supersedes everyone because it's all inclusive! Hence, your GOD is my GOD, and well, your GOD needs my GOD to even Exist. And the funny part is, I can empirically support existence's existence.

The concept of an entity or "creator" being does not directly mean it needs, wants, or expects worship. Worship is based on the assumption of an expectation. It's not central to the concept of a "god".

Wrong.. God is specifically a figure, or idol of worship.. It's completely central to the concept. Otherwise you may as well refer to it as anything, or call it BOB. Or perhaps one of many scientists names who create things in labs all the time.. The concept is moot.

Collapses nothing considering, like I said, the idea that a "god" wants, needs, or expects worship is not central to the concept of a "god". Very humanocentric to assume otherwise.

It needs existence right? It must need To be apart of and in existence right? Must follow the rules of existence in order to exist and be existent correct? Who created existence and the rules of? Like I said, you go to the top of the totem pole and the concept becomes entirely moot! Circular self-collapsing logic gets you no where in this discussion wraith. Even information itself is higher on the totem pole than something to which is enslaved to require it just to know itself even exists, much less be conscious at all! Worse yet, if a creator being is what constitutes as GOD, well there are billions of people on this planet that can sufficiently fill that space. Tell us wraith, what makes a GOD, a GOD? Ahh that's right, you can't actually define it since it's so vague and open to opinion without being all inclusive or resorting to calling existence itself GOD. It's thus a meaningless concept, and you may as well call the dust bunny on my desk "GOD", or even the pile of pooh on the sidewalk "GOD"..

Uh yes you did. I asked you to point out exactly I was making a argumentum ad ignoratum. Which you have thus far failed to do, except of course to assert that it's obvious. Bare assertion.

No I haven't, and you kindly continue to do so.

The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.

Sorry, but information theory is not a formal logical fallacy.

Now, please tell me. Where, exactly, did I assert that something was true because it has not been proven to be false or was false because it has not been proven true?

#2.28, #2.24, #2.22

let's explore the term "Irony":

i·ro·ny

¹    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA

noun, plural -nies.

1.
the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

2.

Literature .
a.
a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.

b.

(especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

And tell me wraith, does GOD need to be a conscious entity considering consciousness can't exist without cause, without a system with informational feedback, value, complexity, or structure? The funny truth about information theory and why it entirely collapses Creationism into a logical fallacy is very simple:

Nothing begins with consciousness, everything begins and ends with information.

It's as simple as knowing your ABC's:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.

Information theory is non-circumventable, especially in dealing with creationism by a religion that claims their GOD created all there is that can be experienced. Creationism is a self-collapsing concept. You create existence, or the rules to it..Especially when oneself is a product of, and bound to the rules of like everything else is. Theists are thus very limited in what they can dub a "Creator". And even an ant can fit into that category ;)

You can't create existence, or the rules to it.

@TheJackel

Sure it does.. it's called Solipsism.

Ah. So the existance of one philosophy or viewpoint negates all others? Hardly. Though some, perhaps many believe so.

And even despite this, the very fact you would imply that no opinion takes "universal preeminence" does make the subject entirely moot even though that is false.

You're kidding right?

More specifically, it only takes one opinion to suggest existence itself is GOD to make everything GOD.. This then supersedes everyone because it's all inclusive! Hence, your GOD is my GOD, and well, your GOD needs my GOD to even Exist. And the funny part is, I can empirically support existence's existence.

All inclusive does not mean right. There are any number of "all inclusive" statements that are not only incorrect but also contradictory. And no you cannot empirically support "existence's existence" as you put it.

Wrong.. God is specifically a figure, or idol of worship.. It's completely central to the concept. Otherwise you may as well refer to it as anything, or call it BOB. Or perhaps one of many scientists names who create things in labs all the time..

You are no doubt familiar with the concept that just because someone does something that is what must be done? All powerful being doesn't directly mean it must be worshipped. How you can even realisticaly think that is beyond me.

The concept is moot.

Considering your flimsy underpinning for saying it is moot?

No I haven't, and you kindly continue to do so.

LoL! And you do it again!

Sorry, but information theory is not a formal logical fallacy.

Are you really going to tell me you forgot the context in which that comment was made? I really shouldn't be suprised considering.

Ah. So the existance of one philosophy or viewpoint negates all others? Hardly. Though some, perhaps many believe so.

It's not the only one I used.. If you notice, I used Pantheism too. What you are not grasping is that by calling existence itself, (Pantheism), as identical to GOD means anything that is actually -->IN<-- and --->OF<-- existence is then thus GOD. It's all inclusive, can't be created, and all that which does exist is slave and bound to it and it's rules in order to exist at all! Let's make this even more clear for you..

WE ARE ALL PRODUCTS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF EXISTENCE ITSELF IN EVERY LITERAL WAY!

You can then look back at reality, the Universe, existence itself to which challenges you to comprehend what are you compared to it. And you can look back and smile and say:

Dude, I am you!

It doesn't matter if Joe or Jane believes X-entity is a GOD, or if Mary believes Marry Poppins or a Smurf is a GOD. It doesn't matter if Jack or Jill believe worship a hill, or if Nancy believes the dirt she grows her flowers in is GOD. It wouldn't even matter if synthetic life man creates were to worship him as GOD either. It doesn't matter what exists you might want to call GOD. In the end, when you really go up that ladder, the highest level you could ever reach is existence itself! And guess what, that's your origin, that's where you came from, that's what you are, and it's substance (energy) to which is the capacity of you, existence itself, information, or volume is what you are made of!.

You're kidding right?

No I am not kidding. Unless you can explain how to design and create existence itself, the rules to it, the capacity of it, the complexity required to even support the basic functions of information processing to even achieve the most basic primitive levels of cognition, awareness, and consciousness, a creator GOD depicted by the 3 major religions of the world is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Lesson here:

You can't create existence, or what yourself is slave to require to exist. It's no different than anything else in existence. Especially anything with a consciousness!

So let's move on here:

You are no doubt familiar with the concept that just because someone does something that is what must be done? All powerful being doesn't directly mean it must be worshipped. How you can even realisticaly think that is beyond me.

Would you consider an Alien Race GOD? And a "All Powerful Being" is a laughable logically fallacy easily debunked. Well, already debunked.. The most powerful thing there is, is existence itself. That's as high as you are going to get on the totem pull of "all powerful".

doesn't directly mean it must be worshipped.

Ok, what is a GOD then? Let's define it shall we:

God is the Englishname given to a singular being in theistic and deisticreligions (and other belief systems) who is either the soledeity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.^[1]

God is most often conceived of as the supernaturalcreator and overseer of the universe.

Well, looks like existence wins, and information theory wins here. Anything else is no different than Man building something out of Lego's, or Ants digging tunnels. Pantheism or Solipsism would win in this debate as well.

Considering your flimsy underpinning for saying it is moot?

It's not flimsy at all.. You seem unwilling to define your "GOD", or what you think could be GOD. and there is a good reason for that ;) Remember the old reply by Atheists in a what can best be described as infinite regress.. "who or what created GOD" , or "Could there be an infinite number of GODS".. Theists don't like these discussions because it does, in fact, collapse their entire premises and assertions of what a GOD is.. It entirely self-collapses to the point of being entire "Moot". Hence since existence is GOD, I am thus GOD. And so are you, and everyone else!

LoL! And you do it again!

Actually I didn't.. I find it amusing that you can't see the Irony or contradiction of your statements. They are self-collapsing.

Are you really going to tell me you forgot the context in which that comment was made? I really shouldn't be suprised considering.

Your context did nothing to address anything I've said. Nor did it address the very premise of information theory, the points of argument in relation to, or what they had to do with "Creationism", or the existence of a "GOD". Especially the GOD depicted by Christianity. Perhaps you can specifically point out exactly what you think is incorrect here, or fallacious.

Voted up.....I wonder if Jazzman will read it......

:-)

What I think you are doing is same thing the pseudos are doing today. You are using ancient incidents to justify your feelings or points about today's Christianity.

incorrect, I am being honest. What you are doing here is using dogma as an attempt for an authority argument, or credibility argument. If I have to, I will post what the religion was founded on, based on, and what's actually in the bible. I used to be a Christian, and I suggest you might want to think about that before making such an argument, or attempt to label me.

Twas a different world back then.

This does not change what the religion is and was. Back then, it was in it's purist form unedited and emergent from it's polytheistic roots. The GOD you worship today is the same GOD they worshiped back then. Trying to change the stripes of a tiger isn't going to turn the tiger into something like a puppy. Hence what you are doing is playing a game of apologetics.

You seem to cherry pick from the article as well.

Umm, I addressed the articles main points.. Was I supposed to nod in agreement and not address anything? .. Calling this cherry-picking is a bit amusing to say the least.

I made note that the Bible was written by men with additions and omissions by same.

Obviously, and what is the bible btw? Ahh the written moral, oral, and cultural traditions and beliefs of the religion written. A religion is essentially the professing to know the will of a GOD, and how to live in accordance to it.

And is not freewill applicable to the choices one makes.

No, because the choices you have will be based on the information and paths available. You can have the will to choose from path A or B, but to actually have "free will" in the literal context, you can not be limited in paths to choose, what you become, how the Universe works in accordance to you ect.. Actual free will is a logical fallacy, and that is just how it really is. To even suggest a judgement by a deity will suggest there is no such thing as actual "free will".

Without asking Jesus himself I think we can assume that many of the things you point out ie the killing of the children and so forth was perhaps amended or added to by men.

That's a really big problem since the man can't even be said to have really existed, or have said anything to which is printed in the bible. The supposed "Man" Jesus never had a written record, or written literature of his own. In fact, most of it was written long after he supposedly died by people that magically knew what he supposedly had said, preached, or philosophized about in perfect quotation. Besides, all religions are invented and written by man.

I tend to look at the things Jesus actually did as an indicator of what he believed and actually preached.

Any empirical evidence of this? Would you say the stilling of the Tempest is something he actually did?.. Or how about saying things stolen from the Mithra's? .. And if he believed that he was a God and that all should love him or burn in a lake of fire, I can't say much for that kind of Narcissism :/ So what exactly can you prove this man preached or didn't preach?

This does not mean that those who came after Jesus agreed with him

Including those Moses had to try and convince he was the son of GOD on top of the "Mountain of GOD". <--- little hint to what Yahweh really was.. However, this argument of yours isn't relevant to the subject discussed :/

I firmly believe that actions make the man

I agree entirely here. And oddly, it's irrelevant in terms of religion, belief, or disbelief. Hence you don't need a belief in religion, a disbelief, or GOD's for that matter for this to be true.

But I would confess that what little I do know of the biblical Jesus is just that little.

The bible itself needs to confess to that because so little is known that it reflects what is commonly known about fictional characters. My position on this is that if a man named Jesus really existed, he was unlikely anything like what's depicted in the bible, or the religion. Call it like comparing William Wallace blowing fire bolts from his arse kind of embellishment at best. This however doesn't mean such a man wasn't of great mind, or even a teacher of philosophy and religious views. But it stops there I am afraid. "/

In my life I take what my heart says to be the right thing and make that my religion

Everyone does I would think.. And it's quite relative in nature.

Thanks for reading. I am not a scholarly person, and my parents and elders warned me against arguing religion.

Likely because it becomes a heated debate, and that religion can not often face the reality of it's reflection on the mirror, critical thought, questions, or skepticism.. Truth tends to be a thing to avoid, and often religious people equate their religion to that of themselves and are thus unable to differentiate the religion from that of themselves. So when someone exposes bad things, uneasy truths, or the dark side of one's religion, they often take offense as a personal attack as if the other person was attacking them specifically.

But I cannot stand idle while some try and use it for everything but what I see as its intended purpose, which is to bring us closer to harmony with one another.

Harmony is likely a form of practical tolerance.. This does not mean we agree, should agree, or even dance in a field holding hands. The best you can logically obtain in a secular world is practical tolerance. And practical tolerance means we can have heated debates without the need to call people names, threaten them, hurt or kill them ect. If you can manage not doing any of that, you have already managed the harmony you so seek.

"In my life I take what my heart says to be the right thing and make that my religion"

Every atheist I know including myself follows the heart. Harmony for me, is being at peace with following one's heart and not continuing to seek peace elsewhere.

tesla, it is a rewarding and calm to be at peace. I enjoyed your article and wish more Christians were as open minded as you.

IMSHO Jakel I feel you are using a lot words to simply say you are right I am wrong.

Actually I used words to say you are both right in some respects, and wrong in others.

This article is not a test.

Nobody claimed it to be a "test". However, when you post an article in an open forum, it's premises and context is open to debate. This debate does not mean that I will agree with everything you've posted, or mean I will not challenge your points and positions.

I am not looking for a passing grade.

I never gave you a grade, or even bothered to rate your article

I wrote this because I feel a few are putting a large number in a bad light, and not for anything so righteous as God or saving souls.

And yet you don't go to the source of their beliefs, or where they get it from. From what I can tell, you're not a biblical literalist, and that is a good thing btw. And what's interesting is that you're talking to someone who once was, someone who used to do all those bad things you speak of. I know where it comes from, and where the mentality behind it comes from.

I also wrote this because I had to follow up on my words to the anti-Christian crowd as well.

This is a bit generalizing or a sweeping statement. It's hard to be "anti-Christian" if one is a hardcore secularist, still has Christian family and friends ect. Anti-Christian is a generalizing term that assumes people who are against the religion are generally against all Christians and everything Christian related.. I do not address Christians peruse here, I do address the religion itself, or aspects of it.

I am not looking for nor have I ever needed anyone's approval.

Nobody is looking to give it to you, or deny it either. Nor was anyone claiming you were "/

It seems to me that you think I do

How so?

But I feel I am right, you are using the same history to justify your point of view on religion/Christianity that these pseudo-christians use to justify theirs, simply because you feel you are correct and they are not does not give you the option to dismiss the one as invalid

Are you telling me that Christian history has nothing to do with Christianity, or that which is written in the bible has nothing to do with the religion? Sorry, but your religion is entirely represented by it's history, and how it's evolved into what it is today. The only one dismissing anything is the one in this discussion not confronting what their religion actually was and still is.

As for one point you made regarding logical fallacy. I see this used often here on Vine. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that this response is very similar to the deflection response.

Perhaps you can provide an example for me. I sense a bit of Irony in that reply.

It is not a response at all but merely that condescending I am right because I say I am right take it and move on approach to an item you do not wish to discuss.

Which Item is it that I am so unwilling to discuss here? What exactly am I doing to be "condescending" vs challenging your position in a logical and rational manner? Condescending is such an easy card to pull out and toss on the table when someone doesn't seem to have much of an argument. :/ Especially when there is no actual intent to be "condescending".

I mentioned not arguing about religion for a reason

How do you expect people not to do that when the religion in question is much apart of the issue? It's like saying you're not allowed to talk about math whilst discussing someones bad, average, or excellent math skills. It makes no sense to limit the discussion in that way.

I am not here to argue the right or wrong of my beliefs. I am not here to defend how I feel, regardless of the fact that these feelings may be based on a fairy tale or the truth. I am here to state how I feel and attend to my obligations as a writer.

You should have then locked the article from accepting posts in an open forum. Whether or not it's a fairy tale really had little to do with what I addressed in my first post btw..

First off Jakel I would appreciate it if you ceased advertising your own articles/seeds here. I will not delete your posts but I will not allow you to further your agenda here.

My posts were in response to someone else's posts. Also, deleting those would be in violation of the COH and would actually get reinstated by a Newsvine moderator. I can post my own articles should I choose to in response to someone else's posts.

Second I see you are a science lover.

I like science, but I am not just a "science lover".

But reliance in only science leaves a huge blind spot in any ones perspective. Yesterdays magic is today's science. Only mans arrogance leads him to believe that science holds all the answers.

The scientific method is the best tool we have, and so far the best way to get reliable answers. And again, I don't just use science.

It is that arrogance that caused me to reject the field of science though wide open to me.

Is it always arrogance if it doesn't conform to your beliefs, or contradicts them? You seem to be cheaply using a lot of dogma here, especially when you assume someone's intentions are to be arrogant. :/

IMSHO what science serves most readily is explaining how the magic works, not that there is no magic

Yes, science explains how they make magic work in the Harry Potter movies. "/

The minuscule degrees of separation from life evolving here or not, i.e. a percent point or two difference in atmospheric content, or a trifle closer or further from the sun, all the combinations of ingredients that had to come together precisely in the amounts and order that they did to create this world, is all the proof I need for the existence of a higher power.

Firstly, there is not a "miniscule" degree of separation the evolution of life here on Earth. Secondly We are on Earth's 3rd Atmosphere. 3rdly, we can be closer and further than we are now from the Sun and still have a Temperate climate for life. 4thly these are not markers for a "creator". That would be like saying existence is to unlikely to exist because it's so remarkable, and thus must mean there is a GOD, a creator of existence and all its rules ect.. Umm NO!.. But if you think that, its ok.. It had nothing to do with what I addressed you on in my first post. I didn't ask you or address you on science, the existence of your god, or anything other than particular points you've made in your Article. If you actually read the progression of this discussion, I am not even the one who's change the subject, or direction of the discussion.

As for disproving global floods or creationism or many of the other incidents described in the Bible that seem to be fodder for arm chair scientists.

It's only fodder against those who actually believe those stories. If you don't believe those stories, it's irrelevant to you. As for the Arm chair scientist thing, while I am not yet a scientist, I am attending college to learn about quantum computing, information theory, and how apply that into cybernetics. Hence getting computers to compute in abstract and probability much like the human brain. And since a Qbit can be both zero and one at the same time unlike binary code to which can only be a zero or one (like switches), we can drastically increase the computational power of the common computer to getting a better understanding of how evolution works in a chaotic abstract system environments. This includes developing new and more powerful self-organizing algorithms to which of course can lead us in new directions for electronics, cybernetics, and other things that can benefit your common armchair internet user such as yourself.

I think the easiest explanation would prove to be poetic licsence don't you?

The easy route is not always the best route to take.

Any respectable scientist will tell you that for every question answered 1000 remain unknown

Well since omniscience is impossible without being the entirety of existence itself, I really don't have a problem with that. I am not bothered by the fact that I am not omniscient. No individual animal, being, or entity with a brain can be, or ever could. And not every answer asked is answerable either. Our minds simply can not expand to incorporate the entire infinite sum, or vastness of existence itself in order to know infinitely everything.

As to freewill you are wrong, you base your argument on your own interpretation of what free means

There is a new definition to the word free? Can you please point out what definition you are using? Free will would be unbound without constraints, judgement, enslavement, conformity, restrictions, rules, impediment, obstruction, or anything else that would control or limit it.

To truly have freewill, I couldn't possible have any kind of restriction. And we all know freewill is a logical fallacy regardless what you believe. It's also why I don't like the term, especially when it's so cheaply used in a religion that entirely contradicts it.

I would argue that the word holds a different meaning for every individual and that choices may be limited by many factors, but limited choices have nothing to do with freewill or the exercising of it.

What? o_O ... I suppose if I want free food I can go catch it.. :/

To me your explanation smacks of nothing more than a deep cynicism towards the human specie and the incredible things we are capable of.

It deals with reality of our limits. Humans are capable of many things, but actual pure freewill in the most unrestricted sense is not one of them.

Lastly we are not here to argue the existence of God

I didn't start that debate, and I've made no effort to address you on that subject. The actual existence or non-existence of your GOD is irrelevant to me as much as is a divine Cow other people worship. I see the cow as a juicy burger with ketchup and fries and nothing more. I thus do not see a cow as "divine", "godly", or even worth my attention other than for a delicious meal... Hence, it's not relevant to me even if I were to become this cows owner, or best buddy vs eating it fresh off the Barbeque Grill.

This is not a science forum. This is not your forum, I would appreciate it if you respect that.

But it's ok to post these to which I responded to?

#2.5 , #2.7 , #2.13 , #2.15 , #2.18 , ect...

If you notice, I didn't bring science into this thread..Someone else did. I never even intended to bring it up, I even refrained from bringing in bible quotes, or posting a massive post on what the Christian GOD actually is in reference to the religion and it's history.. However, I have no problems with addressing peoples posted arguments in an open forum.

It's not about that they "did it to". It's about that I responded to someone's post. Whether that was on topic or not is another issue. I will agree it was off-topic in those outlined debates. Hence, I am not even disagreeing with you there. What I did disagree with is that notion that I brought science into this when I hadn't. My responses were to correct or address other people's positions. And btw, you brought the science debate into this when you addressed "Creationism" to be taught in schools.. And we all know that the political movement is to get it into science! Thus it's actually quite on topic.

Be an adult and just respect my wishes or find another forum Jakel.

I am being an adult, and I am being quite reasonable with you. If you don't want people to discuss various issues in the article, then you should have locked it from accepting posts. People aren't just limited to talking about your perception of "psuedo-Christians", this to which has Irony written all over it :/ .. It should be open to debates in regards to various subject matters discussed in the article. That includes abortion and creationism.

My politeness should not be construed as weakness

I think we are both being quite tolerant of each other despite our disagreements. And I don't construed this as weakness. But what I do construed as weakness is your unwillingness to directly and honestly address my points in the original post.

And yes I can delete your links to your own stories posted on your own page

Not when your article addresses creationism, or even abortion for that matter. Especially when my posts deal with those subjects in your article. You can delete them, but there is a very good chance that you will see them reinstated by a moderator. I learned that lesson in one of my own articles before.. There is nothing I did there that violated the COH. :/

Now you assume to tell me what I am writing about?

Let's quote it:

And that is the issue of creationism versus evolution being taught in school.

This right here is going to cause a debate on that subject in relation to science. You stated your position and then you suddenly expect people not to discuss it? Sorry, but any discussion deriving from that is thus then on topic. And this includes your stances on abortion to which can include science's input on the subject ect.

You cannot even respond to a polite request without a grandiose explanation for your behavior.

Mistaking someone being direct with your for being impolite does not mean I am not being polite. I am being quite polite with you, but you just don't seem to like may responses, challenges to your article's positions.

I will ask now that you please go and accost folks on your own publications.

Again, this is an open forum and you need to deal with discussions or opposite views. As long as what's being posted doesn't violate the COH, it's completely acceptable regardless if you feel someone is or isn't being polite.

I am fairly certain that promoting your own work on the work of another is a violation.

Actually it's not promoting my own work, or spamming it. linking to an article, whether it be mine or someone else's in response to a subject matter brought up in an article, or by a poster is not a violation of COH, or promoting material. Trying to disingenuously attempt to stamp it as such won't do you much good here, especially with Newsvine moderators.

Your attempt to hijack this piece certainly is.

I didn't hijack anything here. Especially wen most of my posts were responding to discussions already taking place. Those are the fruits of others.. And again, my first post, to which you only complain about vs actually address intellectually based on the points made and the merits of those points, was completely valid in all respects to the article's key points.

Mistaking someone being direct with you for being impolite does not mean I am not being polite. I am being quite polite with you, but you just don't seem to like my responses, or challenges to your article's positions.

However, I did enjoy your article. You made some good points, and you do address some bad things some Christians do. Overall, I think it was at least stating your position / belief. But I do disagree with you in some areas.. But it's ok for us to disagree with each other, or even have a heated debate as long as we aren't personally attacking each other. Plus I think you are pretty much a very good person, and I am impressed with your tolerance level since a lot of Christian's I talk to can't seem to even remotely manage practicing practical tolerance :/

There is a lot of assumption and assertion in that post, but there is a real big issue when I see terms like the following being used:

And God who is omnipotent and omnipresent

Both of these are logical fallacies that self-collapse. Omnipresent for example is thus suggesting Pantheism, and Omnipotence is suggesting It could do anything including creating existence itself so he himself could exist.

Example:

If a GOD is omnipresent, where do I exist? Where do you exist?

And if we add in Omniscient deity, that gets even worse... As in I is equal to all the information that gives I an identity.. It's a form of Pantheism, or the unwittingly asserting I, everyone, and everything is GOD. And you so kindly demonstrate that with this:

It is God in male form who plants the seed in the womans womb to reproduce Himself over and over again. It is God who looks out our eyes. He is us.

---

saw that we choose wrong and are born into sinful nature.

Something as an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, and omnipotent GOD should easily be capable of fixing eh? Blaming the beasts on one's creation is like a corporation blaming a propane tank designed to have flaws to which give it a high probability of killing people should these flaw result in an explosion. Makes no logical sense.

and that is why he sent Jesus, His chosen son, born of the virgin to tell us about love and forgiveness and meant to die for our sins to reconcile us to God.

Whens the last time you've read about what GOD is in the bible, or what the name means? This includes the name of Jesus? Yehweh is a volcano/fire GOD, and Jesus literally refers to the salvation from the lake of fire, fire and brimstone ect. The Hebrew alphabet letter for fire is also another name for your GOD, and is also in the name of Jesus.

Something as an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, and omnipotent GOD should easily be capable of fixing eh?

You assume something all powerful, all knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent is a control freak. Obviously....that is not the case. Can you not conceive that love does not demand or control?

And God who is omnipotent and omnipresent

Both of these are logical fallacies that self-collapse

To me, that is you denying your very existence.

You assume something all powerful, all knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent is a control freak. Obviously....that is not the case. Can you not conceive that love does not demand or control?

Let's see... If I couldn't kill someone, need to eat (as in need to murder other life to survive). Need to control resources, have a job, fight off diseases, or have any such things that cause people to war, hate, fear ect.. I would think that would go a long way to "fixing things".. Even I can logically think of a better world. You don't need to be a control freak to fix the problem.

Also, it appears that you don't seem to understand the meaning or definition of those terms that begin with "Omni". Cheap use of terms that result in their self-nullification doesn't impress me much.

Can you not conceive that love does not demand or control?

Oh but it does... Perhaps you can outline the bible for us and then go define what Unconditional Love is. Does a loving GOD create a food chain that must murder itself, and compete to survive. ? Yeah, I'm sure this deity is up there thinking with a smile: PERFECT!

To me, that is you denying your very existence.

Are you calling me GOD?

I believe we were created in His image but what that image may be is far beyond our limited ability to understand.

And yet you pretend to ;) This is what you call an appeal to ignorance.

I believe we are energy born into flesh

This makes absolutely no coherent sense.

Whenever I consider creation I always think of size and relatedness.

This also makes no coherent sense

What if, for instance, the story of Adam and Eve were in a fact a story about two micro-organisms but put into words that we humans could identify with?

Then it should have said so, but I don't recall micro-organisms with human brain capacity for conscious cognitive thought.

One must take into consideration when dealing with anything that the explanations for things must be in language that the masses can understand.

Yes because self-inventing interpretation of the bible is so much fun... Perhaps Adam and Eve is about a story of two people that realize the religion was nonsense... Oh I can play that game to ;)

Elaine, I do struggle with Christians claiming God gives them free will, but they are not allowed free thought to doubt or question the Bible.

Good point Memory. I believe everyone has free will, we are born with it. Throughout our lives from childhood to adults we have people telling us what we should think and believe. Like tesla, I'm a non-denominational Christian and don't follow any organized religion. I went to a non-denomination church and learned the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. Christianity began with the New Testament and the birth of Jesus and even though the Bible in it's entirety is complex, the message of forgiveness and love is easy to understand.

Many people can choose to be exempt from a god and still have love in their hearts.

For myself, I believe it is the spirit of God in us that we have love. In other words, without the spirit of God in the world, there would be no love at all. I just believe that's where love comes from in the first place. So, a person could not recognize or acknowledge God in them, but it doesn't change God's existance.

Speaking of God's love for us, there are amazing facts about the earth that defy logic. I could point to thousands of facts, but I'll just mention this one. If lightning didn't strike somewhere on the earth every 15 seconds, all life would die. Lightning infuses oxygen and it has continually happened unchanged for eons. Human's can't reproduce this amazing feat. It tells me that God keeps us alive whether we know Him or believe it or not.

If lightning didn't strike somewhere on the earth every 15 seconds, all life would die. Lightning infuses oxygen and it has continually happened unchanged for eons.

Lightning creates ozone in the atmosphere and fixates a small amount of nitrogen from the air. Ozone is highly reactive (read that: destructive) with organic compounds. I would love to see some support for the notion that "all life would die" without frequent lightning and that it "infuses oxygen", because for all my trying I can't find anything.

Good morning Elaine, I agree that energy is a link that makes the world go round. I just do not believe a God is the source of that energy. I have studied both the old and new testament and do not believe it represents anything but stories. There simply are not facts that god exists. Many acts of nature are thrilling and hard to explain, but science is better clarifying these natural phenomenons than reciting scripture from the Bible. The lightening analogy you gave only speaks of nature and not a god imho.

Also, when lightening strikes a person and kills them, how loving is this god?

I would love to see some support for the notion that "all life would die" without frequent lightning and that it "infuses oxygen", because for all my trying I can't find anything.

Are you serious? I just checked Google "lightning strikes earth every 15 seconds" and 309,000 references came up. Am I going to go through them and research it for you....no.

I just checked Google "lightning strikes earth every 15 seconds" and 309,000 references came up

And none of them have any information about "infusing oxygen" or "all life woud die" without it.

Still Elaine, how does what you claim prove this is from a god?

Hi Memory, thank you for your reply. I understand your view that energy makes the world go round but God isn't the source. In my view, not only is God the source of the energy but God is the energy. I used the lightning phenomena as an example because it speaks to me of love. It represents intelligence and love for this planet and the humans on it that this repeating process is one factor keeping us alive.

As far as lightning strikes killing someone....that and all deaths are very sad, but is a constant earthly occurrence. Birth and death.....over and over.

I really don't know all the answers, no one does. But I don't think we are meant to understand all things...we're very limited in our human form. Look where we are, here in 2011.....considered "advanced" in science and technology......and yet we are still trying to figure out the universe.

I also think we are not humans having spiritual experiences, I think we are spirits having human experiences.

In my opinion the Bible is not a science book, but rather a history of generations and should be accepted as such. The authors were no dummies, and described events to the best of their abilities as a reminder for future generations. God is not a being at a control box pushing buttons, as the Bible explains, all things exist because that is his will. Lighting exists because that is Gods will, not because he's upset and wants to punish people shooting lighting bolts like a laser gun, and the same goes for other natural disasters. We can not have free will if the environment we live in is constantly being manipulated due to our behavior.

Science is not a history book, it is a practice in which we are able to explain the mechanics in the universe we live in. Science is also used as a tool to unravel the mysteries of Gods creations, with each new breakthrough, we understand that nothing is completely random and some type of instructions exist, giving rise to the creation, such as DNA. Does the Divine exist? One only needs to ask, is science capable of answering this feat?

Interesting how we interpret love or hear it spoken to us Elaine. I love a good romantic thunder boomer storm that lights up the sky from time to time. Sadly, in my neck of the woods lightening storms have caused death and destruction. I understand what you or trying to glean from nature as love, but for me I love nature for it's beauty and enlightenment without any god association.

Tesla, you have me confused when you state this article is not whether or not god exists or not and yet in your first paragraph of your article you state that you believe god resides in all of us.I do not say this is haste but when you make a statement such as this you draw in those who believe otherwise. Messages boards are intended for debate or discussion and opens the door wide open for personal comments.

Getting back to your intended topic, I do not believe creationism should be taught in our public educational system.

In my opinion the Bible is not a science book, but rather a history of generations and should be accepted as such. The authors were no dummies, and described events to the best of their abilities as a reminder for future generations. God is not a being at a control box pushing buttons, as the Bible explains, all things exist because that is his will. Lighting exists because that is Gods will, not because he's upset and wants to punish people shooting lighting bolts like a laser gun, and the same goes for other natural disasters. We can not have free will if the environment we live in is constantly being manipulated due to our behavior.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense you would find in a "Creationist" pseudo-science class room :/ How about it's not GOD but Pixie fairies that control Thor like a puppet on a string?

Any empirical evidence to support that and substantiate that?

Science is not a history book

Not sure how many science books you've read, but that is incorrect.

Science is also used as a tool to unravel the mysteries of Gods creations, with each new breakthrough, we understand that nothing is completely random and some type of instructions exist, giving rise to the creation, such as DNA. Does the Divine exist?

Now you are dealing with information theory, and sadly, same rules and problem applies to consciousness.. In fact, it would be even more improbably for a conscious state to exist than DNA or something as simple as a Rock... Sorry, but you can't win a information game, and a complexity game with something that would require far more cause to exist than that which you think requires a "creator". In all cases, you require a complex adaptive system of information with feedback. You can revert to post: #2.30

Not sure how many science books you've read, but that is incorrect.

No, that's entirely correct. Science and history are separate disciplines.

In fact, it would be even more improbable for a conscious state to exist than DNA or something as simple as a Rock.

So I ask, which requires more information to support, and more complexity to support? A rock, or a conscious state? ... Complexity is a killer isn't it ;) The more complex something is, the more cause it will require to exist. That is how complexity works, and it doesn't work in reverse as you people seem to be trying to suggest. It's like begging for reverse creationism were you are suggesting that complexity was designed and created from the highest state of complexity..

Those are what you call self-collapsing arguments and positions. It's no different than this Gem:

Only GOD can Know how to Create Knowledge into existence

Yes, I was told this.. Kinda makes me giggle, but feel the need to face palm. o_0

No, that's entirely correct. Science and history are separate disciplines.

Many science books have a history of their disciplines, and often deal with history.. Do I seriously need to post examples?

Many science books have a history of their disciplines, and often deal with history.. Do I seriously need to post examples?

That would be history put in science books. The two disciplines are still separate.

So you are telling me that history has nothing to do with Archeology, geology, anthropology and a hole list of things? History quite frankly deals with science. Now if he's talking about written history or just literature that involves no science, then I would agree. However, historians must often use science as apart of their discipline to get answers.

edit.. wrong article.. post

@CommisarCain:

That's a cop out. Doing the right thing is not reserved for one sex or the other. It's an obligation of all humanity.

Is it ok to control someone by by trying to make them them adopt your principles?

Is it ok to control someone by by trying to make them them adopt your principles?

That's the point of laws. To set down principles that keep people from harming each other.

@CommisarCain:

It's not really a cut and dry situation as that though. The whole does life start at conception or?

Don't get me wrong. I'm against abortion as well. Well, except for special cases, medical problems and rape victims. My problem is largely the larger moral question of ending even a emergant life because it's inconvient and what that says about our society that it's acceptable.

It's not really a cut and dry situation as that though. The whole does life start at conception or?

That's the point of the whole debate.

@CommisarCain:

I take it you assert that life begins at conception?

Life was fashioned by electromagnetism, it begins there. It is in fact an electromagnetic phenomenon. Even fire can be squeezed into the definition of life since all it's characteristics meet the requirements. Fire and lightning for that matter are also electromagnetic phenomenon... The atoms, and the difference of to which make up your body, and it's chemistry are determined by the electromagnetic force to which binds them together. The differences in atoms determines the chemical and biodiversity of this planet.

The only things that are not Electromagnetic are Pressure waves, and Gravity.. You can not see without electromagnetism, or hear your tv without pressure waves. Your ability to feel pain, comfort, cold, heat ect are all electromagnetic interactions and transactions.

@TheJackel:

Uh. If you're going to try to join a conversation at least bother to try to figure out what exactly it's a about.

It is in fact an electromagnetic phenomenon. Even fire can be squeezed into the definition of life since all it's characteristics meet the requirements.

Fire is actually a chemical reaction.

Fire is actually a chemical reaction.

And chemical reactions are what CommisarCain? Well, let's look at what fire is :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7VgmhhGAoU

Fire is an electric phenomenon.. The color of the flame to the quantum transactions.

Next:

Uh. If you're going to try to join a conversation at least bother to try to figure out what exactly it's a about.

I know exactly what you are talking about. What makes you think I don't? You seriously think I don't know what "life at conception" is referring to? Ok lol.. How did life "begin" at conception? Not sure if you realize that I am questioning your position. Now if you want to discuss the morality of abortion, that is entirely another subject..

And chemical reactions are what CommisarCain?

They're not necessarily life.

What makes you think I don't?

You defined fire as being a form of life.

They're not necessarily life.

I never deposited that argument, but what I did is show that they are when they do form life, and self-replicating molecules.

You defined fire as being a form of life.

No, I said fire can technically under its characteristics, behaviors, and properties.., fit under the strict definition of life on technicality. Hence, this doesn't mean we actually consider fire in itself actually a living organism, it's just that it's characteristics and properties and behaviors can fit to the tenets in which are used to defined life. such as:

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i. e., living organisms) from those that do not,^[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.^[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection

Hence, I can fit fires characteristics into pretty much all of that. But it's rather an old joke in science or concept discussed before.. But the purpose of me using it wasn't to say fire was or is a living organism, it was to make a point about fire's electromagnetism is the same as which fashions life, and that life and fire share many of the same Characteristics.

They are both electromagnetic phenomenon and fashioned by electromagnetism. :)

No, I said fire can technically under its characteristics, behaviors, and properties.., fit under the strict definition of life on technicality.

You just did it again.

Hence, I can fit fires characteristics into pretty much all of that.

No you can't.

You just did it again.

Learn to read intended context please..

No you can't.

1) Self-sustaining processes:

Fire can self-sustain so long as there is fuel, and conditions favorable to sustaining it.. Just like any living organism.

2) Animate vs inanimate

from those that do not,^[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Fire can be argued to be animate and alive until it's either put out, runs out of fuel. Just like any living organism. Thus at that time, Death occurs.

3) metabolism:

Metabolism (from Greek μεταβολισμός (metabolismos), "outthrow") is the set of chemical reactions that happen in living organisms to maintain life. These processes allow organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain their structures

Once a fire is born (started), it has a set of chemical reactions that happen to maintain it's life, reproduce, and maintain it's structure as a fire.

4) homeostasis:

is the property of a system that regulates its internal environment and tends to maintain a stable, constant condition of properties like temperature or pH. It can be either an open or closed system.

Now if you include nuclear fusion, fission ect, we can establish stable and constant conditions of properties like temperature. This one is more specific to open systems, but can also apply to a closed system until it reaches maximum entropy or runs out of fuel, oxygen, ect to which sustains it. Same thing will applies to any living organism.

5) capacity to grow:

Fire can Grow in many ways. It's flames can get taller, the size of the fire can increase over time scale.

6) respond to stimuli:

Fire can respond to stimuli such as winds, moisture in the air, rain, or even the adding of more fuel.

7) reproduce

Fires can reproduce by sending hot ash, exploding trees, sparks ect.. Fire can hence, create more fires.

8) Natural selection:

is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers

Fires that come across different fuels for example will result in different characteristics of fire, and thus have a differential in reproduction of it's bearers. It can become hotter, more explosive, cause more fires to start, or even become a full blown firestorm or dangerous chemical fire.

--

Like I said, I can fit fire into pretty much all those things to which we use to define "life". This of course doesn't make fire a living organism, what it does show is that like life, it's an electromagnetic phenomenon. And that was the point being made. It's a scientific fact..

However, this is my last word on this.. After this post, I will remain on topic, and you can feel free to join the on topic discussion.

Like I said, I can fit fire into pretty much all those things to which we use to define "life".

You have discovered fire cells?

You have discovered fire cells?

Life is not defined by "cell" alone even though a living cell is considered the smallest unit of a living organism. If a cell does nothing in terms of those things outlined above, or is dead (inanimate), it's no longer a living organism / cell. However, we can argue fire doesn't need cells to live and that such cells are simply on the menu for potential consumption as fuel.

We can also address this:

If glucose is burned in air, it produces carbon dioxide, water, and heat.

C₆H₁₂O₆ + 60₂ -> 6CO₂ + 6H₂O - 686 kcal/mole

But in cells, the reaction synthesizes energy-rich ATP molecules which are used to power the sysnthesis of cell constituents, molecule transport, and muscle contraction.

C₆H₁₂O₆ + 60₂ + 36ADP -> 6CO₂ + 6H₂O + 36ATP

Each bond of ATP represents 7.3 kcal/mole, so 36 ATP molecules represent 263 kcal/mole, a conversion efficiency of 38%. ATP is synthesized in cell mytochondria. When ATP releases its energy (to power muscular contraction or whatever), it breaks one phosphorus bond, and becomes ADP, which is cycled back round to mytochondria to get the phosphorus bond restored to make more ATP.

Hence, If the reaction of glucose and oxygen were to proceed as it does in air, plants and animals would catch fire or explode. Slowing the reaction by taking it through a series of stages, and using it to synthesize packets of energy in the form of ATP, makes for a kind of slow burn.

And yes cells are products of electromagnetic chemical reactions. They burn energy, and radiate it. Hence, life is bound to thermodynamics as an electromagnetic phenomenon just as fire is. Rusting of a car for instance is essentially a slow burn as well even though it produces no flame.

So why don't scientists consider fire as a living organism if it meets most of the criteria we define life with? Well, it's simple really..

Life = Self generated action mediated by nucleic acids. Fire is not even though they are both electromagnetic phenomenon.

Life is not defined by "cell" alone even though a living cell is considered the smallest unit of a living organism.

I think you're missing the point willfully.

sorry, forgot link:

http://www.idlex.freeserve.co.uk/idle/evolution/fire.html
http://www.idlex.freeserve.co.uk/idle/evolution/idle-life.html

Also to note, like animals, fire breaths oxygen and gives off CO2 and heat just like animals.. Accept it doesn't need lungs ;) So it does get tricky. :)

I think you're missing the point willfully.

No I didn't, your argument really doesn't address mine. I am just showing you the old argument about fire fitting into the definition of life in many areas, and that's it. It's a tricky argument, but my main point to you was that Life is as fire is, an electromagnetic phenomenon. It's a fact!

Also to note, like animals, fire breaths oxygen and gives off CO2 and heat just like animals.. Accept it doesn't need lungs ;) So it does get tricky. :)

No, fire simply doesn't breathe.

Breathing is what CommisarCain? ..

Breathing is the process that moves air in and out of the lungs. Aerobicorganisms require oxygen to release energy via respiration, in the form of the metabolism of energy-rich molecules such as glucose. Breathing is only one process that delivers oxygen to where it is needed in the body and removes carbon dioxide.

some animals breath through their skin.. Or living organisms like Earthworms to which do not have lungs.

If you suffocate a fire, or prevent it from receiving oxygen, it dies just like if you were to do the same thing to an animal. Fire also requires oxygen to release energy unless you are talking about fusion or fission reactions.

Pssst the seeder asked that we stop this. A little common courtesy please?

Psst, he asked us to wrap it up.. I think we've wrapped it up ; )

Wraith777,

Uh. No. You obviously don't.

Incorrect

Overwhelming evidence. See below.

Let's correct the sentence here:

Ok How did life "begin" at conception? Not sure if you realize that I am questioning your the position of life beginning at conception.

This of course being corrected to be in relation to the question you asked CC in it's original form prior to your added clarification of what you meant to ask.

--

How can you question a position I have not stated?

By error, and reading and replying at nearly 2am in the morning after school and work.. It happens :)

I asked CC if his position was that.

I figured that out thanks. However, this did not mean I did not know what was being discussed. It makes no sense to say "Life begins at conception".

And you go off on a tangental rant about electromagnetism

I don't need to, what I posted is a fact. And was my input to where life begins. And I am being literal here since life does not begin at "conception". That's like saying this sentence begins in the middle when it does not.

At what point does CC consider the zygote/fetus/whatever to be a seperate lifeform from it's mother? In a nut shell, "Does he assert that life starts at conception?"

I think it would be better to ask him at what point does he consider the zygote or fetus to be a separate human being.. But the context of your original question didn't ask that. So in the written context of the original question, the cells are living cells, so it thus made no sense to ask him if life begins there.

We can at best say that conception is the progression and reproduction of life. Life doesn't magically just spark into existence when the sperm fertilizes the Egg. But since you clarified your question a bit more, it would be correct to say that at conception the joined cells begin the process of developing another human being separate from the mother conceptually depending on interpretation. However, the zygote or fetus are not physically or biologically separate from the mother until birth if you want to be scientifically technical. He could however argue separation when the brain fully develops and becomes a little semi conscious individual human being. So I suppose I am curious as to where you and CC consider the dividing line..

And you asked what made me think you don't know what I'm talking about? LoL!

My reference to that wasn't dependent on whom you asked the question to, whether or not it was a question, or what stance you might have had. That error is easily fixed, but really has nothing to do with the meat of what was being discussed in terms of life beginning at conception. So despite my error, your question was not a valid question to ask him since it makes no sense in terms of the context (minus your later added input to clarify what you meant) of the question asked in relation to the reproductive process..

Trying so desperately hard to seem smart in this case is definantly having a counter effect.

Nobody was desperately trying to "seem smart". For instance, the word definitely isn't spelled definantly. If you are going to brown nose, make sure you check your spelling first. Especially when you attempt a jab someone's smarts.

Actually, I didn't say you were stupid or even not smart. I merely said that you are trying to hard to seem smart. The fact of you taking the extreme negative context of my statement points out exactly why you fail Young Skywalker.