When did 'LIFE" begin? (Science in relation with the Biblical description)

[Mousetrap]

(1) A guy on the internet who is unable to answer our objections except by ranting, raving, and making baseless accusations of trying to distort his idea, yet is curiously silent about actual calculations and discussions of what kind of hypotheses constitute a proper explanation of the evidence.

or,

(2) Our own calculations and understanding of science, which tells us that if any of what you say is true, then there was no need for God to wipe out human kind on Earth except for Noah and company, due to the fact that every living thing on earth would be dead already from the Steam+ shielding the earth from nasty radiation.

I would only be a chump if I were to trust someone who is telling something that is manifestly not true, and is unable to answer why rebuttals to his point are unfounded, but can only scream invective at us.

Wow. You are truly a mathematical wizard in this argument of yours.
I would like you to show a guy like John Lenox incorrect with your mathematics.
Dawkins, Hawking, Singer and Krauss ran away in a fight with John with their tails between their legs.

Now, take special note on my claim.
I saw that science proved that if the atmosphere was not in equilibrium 4YK ago, there will be much less C14/C12 and the speciment will test very old!,
I saw that science said that if there was less C14 humans will grow very old due to less radiation on our cellular level.
I saw that scientists are now growing C14 crops to sell for this reason.
I saw the Bible spoke about a different atmosphere, and humans not ageing so fast when this atmosphere was quite different from the one we now live in.
I saw the Bible also said the Atmosphere was very moist and a mist rose from the Earth, but after the waters of the Heaven fell upon the Earth, the atmosphere was clear, and refraction of light was observed for the first time.

The above is what I claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why did I make this claim, so that Atheists now knows that there is an answer to the accusation that C14 proves the Bible incorrect, and at the same time I showed 3 nice scientific observations made in the Bible 4 000 years ago, that I can use against your arguments.
Thats all!

I will tomorrow continue with Uranium Lead decay, rock dating etc.

[trdsf]

In Mouseworld, "straw man" means "Yes, there is an obvious flaw in my argument, error in the way I interpreted data, grotesque misuse of logic, or clearly impossible conclusion that is immediately implied by everything I've said, but I'm not going to admit to it, refute it, nor even acknowledge it".

Useful information going forward.  Or, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

[sdelsolray]

...
Do you hear yourself?
You are saying that there are "self-replicating molecule(s) capable of mutation"
This is BS at its best.
Please supply me with a scientific discovery of this molecules.
You then tell me that this molecules are already self replicating without any DNA etc. and you continue with this fairy tale of evolution and claim this molecules are already replicating becoming subject to natural selection.
Beertiful!
Where can I get this compounded matter, and can it also replicate Gold atoms with Platinum?
.
If I consider the science from this perspective,I will be the laughing stock of ...the World of Logic in general.

Oh, And if you believe in this silly science, you are an Atheist chump.

...

I simply provided you with what the real scientists who study and research the various abiogenesis hypotheses are currently studying and researching and what the real scientists who study and research early evolution (i.e., pre-DNA, prebiotic, etc.) study and research.

I did this and suggested you study these areas so that you have an awareness of what these areas of scientific research entail, and what they do not entail.

You obviously refuse to do so.  You also appear quite deficient in any understanding of organic chemistry.  You've already demonstrated, in your Origin of the Universe thread, that you understanding of physics is similarly deficient.  I conclude, therefore, that you are willfully ignorant of current science in these areas, which makes you a dime-a-dozen creationist chump.

...
Pal, any living thing has working DNA, it breaths, eats, ages, replicates.
your alien life form is non existent.

We are discussing the origin of carbon based life on Earth, not the current biology of life on Earth.  Try to stay on topic.

do you realize you did not answer me on what a "WHORE Creationist website" is?
Or is this a slight slip about the reflective thoughts your mind is composed off?
...

A creationist whore website typically contains lies, misrepresentations and duplicity generated by its authors (or simply repeated from other creationist whore sources) along with heavy reliance on informal logical fallacies, mere assertions and a variety of cognitive biases, all overshadowed by psychological and emotional dysfunctions due to an addiction to certain religious dogma.  These websites abound.  They tend to infect certain persons with all this garbage.  You are a perfect example of one so infected.  I'm sure you have many of them bookmarked and rely on them.

[trdsf]

I remember being exposed to "how to identify life" in grade school.  Pretty much the same as Wiki says.  Something like 7 characteristics that all have to be present for a thing to be "life."  Some non living things may also have some of the characteristics, but if they don't have all 7 (or whatever), they aren't alive.

I remember being unsatisfied learning the characteristics, because there really wasn't anything new or extraordinary.  I could have listed these with my own observations, so I guess it sort of validated what I already observed on my own.  But I wanted more.  Where is that dividing line where bags of chemical compounds emerge from the non living?  Is it a line that requires just a baby step to make the transition?  Is it much wider than the step of a baby?

Today, I don't think about it much.  It doesn't seem like the semi miracle that it once did.  As chemicals and atoms join to form compounds and compounds join with other compounds, chemistry allows for some complicated and interesting results.  I don't see life as that much different than other complex combinations that grow out of chemical reactions.  It's just another rather interesting combination, which is interesting to a large degree only because it leads to us.

I dunno, I think the question of what is and isn't alive is more interesting now that we have more potential habitats to explore than just the Earth.  It's a question that we could very well end up facing when we explore the waters of Enceladus, Europa and Ganymede, the permafrost of Mars, and conceivably even the methane lakes of Titan.  Could we even identify a virus or phage (or bacterium) if it's based on an information-carrying molecule other than DNA?  Or life adapted to operate very slowly because of the deep chill of Titanian liquid methane?

I'm of the opinion that we need a more catholic definition of life than we did twenty, twenty-five years ago.  And I don't think there's a hard and fast line between 'alive' and 'not alive'.  We can't even say with any certainty that viruses are alive, or just complex chemical reactions -- a virion doesn't really engage in any of the activities we use to define life, but when it comes in contact with a cell, it does.

[Hakurei Reimu]

No simply a mist like one you will experience in an early winter morning.
I backpack a lot, and so far I was not bitten by this phenomena.

Then, no, it's not a mist. It was a supercritical fluid. At least, that is what your water shielding 'theory' requires. I guarantee you, you have never encountered a bank of supercritical fluid water on your backpack trips.

That said, mists produced in atmosphere are formed from ambient water vapor and does not exceed a few percent by weight in concentration. Given that a human's lung capacity is maybe 3 litres (0.003 m³) and air ~1.225 kg/m³ (International Standard Atmosphere), that means that you would only aspirate 0.1 g of water with each breath even in the thickest of mists. Aspirating 878 g (almost a kilogram!) of water may be more of a problem, especially if it's a supercritical fluid and not a mere wimpy mist.

I love it how you go and tell me what I explained, but you dont even understand what I say.
No, I am incorrect with this statement.
You know halfheartedly what I explained, yet you have to keep on hammering that the Atmosphere was this thick poisonous thing. Look at your maths.
You are telling me if the Atmosphere was a simple and inocent water mist, there will not be any Oxygen in it.

No, I said that if if the water content of your atmosphere was sufficient to give the shielding required to make 4000 yo remains look like it's 40,000 yo, it would have to be a supercritical fluid, and would be worse than steam. It's taking two of your premises and carrying them to their logical, scientific conclusion.

You are accusing me of "knowing halfheartedly what you explian," yet you do not seem to understand what I explained in no uncertain terms. I know you didn't explain the pre-flood atmosphere as a supercritical fluid. I did.

And, no, that's not a strawman. It may be an improper conclusion based on what you provided (though you have yet to show that), but it's not a strawman. I fully claim that calculation as MY work. It simply has dire implications for YOUR 'theory.' It's just like the work of Lise Meitner had severe implications based on Otto Hahn's work. (Hint: Meitner deduced that Hahn had produced nuclear fission in his experiments.)

Funny that I can survive my trail paths when I do some distance walking in nature.
Where do you stay?
Venus?

You really aren't able to understand sarcasm, are you? When I said, "If you mean "mist" a supercritical fluid, then yes," I didn't mean that ordinary mist was actually a supercritical fluid.

How old are you, seriously?

And you still get it wrong?

The only person here who seems to not understand is you, cupcake.

Ok, now you are really shooting bacon.(or the whole pig)
No one has ever calculated how many water there would be needed in the atmosphere to shield the Earth from Cosmic Radiation.

No one has ever calculated how much water is needed? What's this then?
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12787.msg1223534#msg1223534

Anyway, you act like nobody has ever used water as radiation shielding before:



Better let the nuclear engineers at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station know that their shielding is unproven!

You got it all wrong. First of all, C14 is produced on the perimeter of the Atmosphere, not therein.

No, that's you who has gotten it all wrong. C14 is produced principly in the troposphere and stratosphere. Those are the two lowest layers of the atmosphere. The reason is that's where the atmosphere is densest in N14.

We are protected by most of the cosmic radiation due to our atmosphere.

No, we're protected mostly by our magnetic field. That's why it likes to hang out in the Van Allen belts. Also, the atmosphere is a huge fuck-off mass of material. Radiation shielding does it's job by putting a lot of matter between you and the source, so the radiation hits and deposits its energy in that instead of you. Even then, cosmic rays are a good chunk of your personal background, to the tune of 0.39 mSv/yr.

A very slight amount of water will have a huge decline on N14 to c14 transmission.

You mean "transmutation." Also, show the absorption coefficient of radiation through water vapor as a function of energy and vapor density. If it's high enough, it will prove your point.

I made 2 points which science attests.
1. It is more probable for the Atmosphere to NOT HAVE HAD EQUILIBRIUM 4 YK AGO, THAN BILLIONS OF YEARS.

Assuming equilibrium is being generous to you, cupcake. It is unlikely that the neutron flux has varied significantly over billions of years, because the production of C14 is being caused by cosmic rays. When we look to more and more distant objects (and therefore seeing them younger and younger), we see that galaxies and such as remarkably stable over those billions of years. There is no cause to think that the neutron flux has changed by any significant degree over those billions of years. The only significant factor that could be at work is the amount of water shielding.

Also, remember that you did say that a 4000 yo object could appear 40,000 yo by radiocarbon dating. It would appear such precisely because it would be deficient in C14 when first formed compared to modern remains. If it is not in equilibrium, then 4000 y ago, the concentration would be increasing (due to the destruction of the vapor shield and the equilibrium level being above this amount), ergo, in the past, there would be less C14 in the air, which would need to be explained by even more water in your water shield.

2. It the atmosphere would only reached equilibrium 4Yk ago, then science say one will live much longer in this c14 free atmosphere.

No, "the science" does not say that we would live much longer in a C14 free atmosphere, one paper does. One preliminary paper does not established science make. Single papers that definitively establish a solid scientific consensus are extremely rare, and your cited paper is not that kind â€" because they usually come at the END of a protracted discussion, and detail a well-controlled and performed study or experiment that settles the matter once and for all. A result like in your paper would at least need independent replication, especially as it pertains to human health.

The other thing is that C14 is hardly the only source of radiation in the ancient world, even under a water shield. Radon-222 and potassium-40 come to mind. K40 contributes 10 times the radiation exposure as does C14. So, even if you remove all the C14 from a person, you only reduce their radiation exposure by at most ~9%. There are also many cosmogenic nuclides that may be produced and cause havock, and some of then are produced from components of water.

I know that TV portrays scientific discovery as this "Eureka!" moment, but as someone who practices science, it's very much fiction. It takes years, sometimes decades, for a genuine discovery to make its way through the literature, and most of your 'discoveries' will be proven wrong. Using preliminary and unsettled frontier science does not make for a firm foundation.

I then made an observation and concluded that if this is the case, then the Bible is 100% correct that people could have lived to almost a 1 000 years,

This would be an unsupported conclusion without a radiation dosage-response curve of survival times. Please produce this data. Then you would have a leg to stand on saying that "the Bible is 100% correct" that people could live this long, and is even further away from proving that some did.

and I also say a description in the Bible that the atmosphere did change dramatically.

Yes, by my calculations, it changes from inside a pressure cooker to actually livable by the current biospehre.

The Bible says, the atmosphere was a mist of water, and there was no refraction of light, until a flood where this water was pulled out of the sky, resulting in a visible rainbow.

Now, if we take these facts into consideration, scientific and Biblical observation, there is no discrepancy on dating techniques as done by science.
And remember the "C14 fee food discovery" made by scientists to prolong life.You are correct.

That's a cool story, bro, but until you support it with empirical, observational evidence, that's all it is. I already pointed out that "C14 fee food discovery" is not a discovery by any stretch of the imagination, but even if it were, that doesn't mean that anyone in history, or the Bible, was able to take advantage of it. No, just because the Bible said it doesn't mean anyone actually did. Find me human remains that shows definite signs of having actually lived 969 years, and you might have a case. Until then, it's just something you and the Bible say.

Swearing has nothing to do with MY point, but it reflects YOUR poorly allocated position where you think swearing will change the facts.

It was ONE WORD and it wasn't even directed at you. I used it as an emphetic, and its meaning was clear to everyone. Swearing does not advance my position, but it doesn't diminish it, either.

and I think I am wasteing my time with someone that neeeeeeds to disprove the Bible with arguments Other than those I produced.
The Straw Man offence.
Love it

Empty posturing, you unsinkable rubber duck. If you had a leg to stand on, you would go through my calculation and evicerate it point by point. But you can't, so you have to resort to falsely trumpeting fallacies and lies.

The only points of my calculation and therefore my conclusion that intersects with your argument is your characterization of an object with a true age of 4000 years has an apparent age of 40,000 years by C14 dating, and that the reason why the Earth would have a derth of C14 compared to modern times is because of a water shielding. That's it. That's the totallity of your argument's involvement in my calculation. Everything else is mine, using the well-established science of radiation, and a few, reasonable, and generous (to you) assumptions.

If you don't agree with the 4000/40,000 year figures, then find me a pair of real numbers from a real object and we can try this again. If I've misused one of the points in your argument, fine. Show me how it's misused with a reference and we can continue from there.

Otherwise, it's just a bunch of impotent mewlings from you.

[SGOS]

I dunno, I think the question of what is and isn't alive is more interesting now that we have more potential habitats to explore than just the Earth.  It's a question that we could very well end up facing when we explore the waters of Enceladus, Europa and Ganymede, the permafrost of Mars, and conceivably even the methane lakes of Titan.  Could we even identify a virus or phage (or bacterium) if it's based on an information-carrying molecule other than DNA?  Or life adapted to operate very slowly because of the deep chill of Titanian liquid methane?

I don't think there is a hard fast line between life and non-life either.  Life is just an extension of natural chemical processes.  Life is interesting especially to us because we are alive, and the mystery of it makes it seem more special than it is.  Natural processes are remarkable because of the complexity involved and the billions of years required to fashion interesting things, some which are not even living.  But understanding as much (or as little) of it as we do, is more awesome to me than the simplicity of the Biblical miracles used to explain it.

[Baruch]

I don't think there is a hard fast line between life and non-life either.  Life is just an extension of natural chemical processes.  Life is interesting especially to us because we are alive, and the mystery of it makes it seem more special than it is.  Natural processes are remarkable because of the complexity involved and the billions of years required to fashion interesting things, some which are not even living.  But understanding as much (or as little) of it as we do, is more awesome to me than the simplicity of the Biblical miracles used to explain it.

When one looks at things abstractly, and reductionist, it does look simple.   But that is just a side effect of the POV taken.  Of course we have to abstract and reduce, when we can, otherwise we can do nothing.  We can only be successful with than history and complexity can be dismissed as irrelevant ... as it is sometimes.  For example, in basic physics there is nothing that says that time must move forward, but in actual lived experience, it is critical.  For those physics situations where the direction of time doesn't matter, then simplistic models suffice.  But eventually things get too complex or to dependent on prior events ... and are no longer amenable to scientific method.

[trdsf]

I don't think there is a hard fast line between life and non-life either.  Life is just an extension of natural chemical processes.  Life is interesting especially to us because we are alive, and the mystery of it makes it seem more special than it is.  Natural processes are remarkable because of the complexity involved and the billions of years required to fashion interesting things, some which are not even living.  But understanding as much (or as little) of it as we do, is more awesome to me than the simplicity of the Biblical miracles used to explain it.

The most fascinating question that we'll never have an answer to is: how many times did self-replicating molecules arise independently on Earth, and how many different forms did they take before they were all out-replicated and out-evolved by the one we descend from?

The might-have-beens are absolutely staggering.

[Mousetrap]

So, I went and followed all these links I was supplied by Atheists that claim Evolution is a proved scientific fact due to elaborate laboratory experiments.
This is one example which I think reflects the foundation of all evolutionists to hold on to a theory that just fails when investigated.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

I wondered how much money this scientist receives for his research.
I could have saved him a lot of time.
When I was about 15 years old, I bread a black budgie from a line of blue and yellow.
Wow, I am an atheist scientist who proved Evolution.
When I began working in Poultry Abattoirs, I learned how difficult it is to keep Bacteria at bay. Once you use an acidic based soap, after less than 2 weeks they are resistant to it. Change to Alkalinity based soap, and 2 weeks later they are resistant to it.
Sanitize with Methanol, they get resistant to it. Change to Ethanol, guess what....

I also bread Boxer Dogs, and was able to breed a heaver line than normal, but they were prone to cancer.

Guys, what do you think will happen when you take some bacteria or viruses out of their environment, and feed them something they usually fight for?
I would suggest from my observation of nature in my workareas and back yard, that there will be changes.

Now, why dont I accept these observations as evidence for Evolution?
Ecoli remained Ecoli, a Budgie remains a budgie, salmonella remains salmonella, and a boxer dog remains a boxed dog.

Where is there any evidence that we have Humans with pelt proving they evolved from wolfs, Humans with ostrich feet, Humans with 8 limbs showing they evolved from spiders, humans with skin proving they developed from alligators.

Oh no!
They do exist!
This is evidence of evolution!!!!

LOL

[Mousetrap]

The most fascinating question that we'll never have an answer to is: how many times did self-replicating molecules arise independently on Earth, and how many different forms did they take before they were all out-replicated and out-evolved by the one we descend from?

The might-have-beens are absolutely staggering.

Yes!
Now we are getting to the core of it all.
How many times on earth, in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the universe, in the multiverses, perhaps, maybe, it could be, scientists believe, it is highly probable, it might be, ..........

[Mousetrap]

People evolves into wolfs

[Mousetrap]

people evolves into Ostriches

[Mousetrap]

People evolves into alligators!

[Mousetrap]

People evolving into multiple eyed humans, perhaps they will end up with spider eyes!

[Mousetrap]

people evolves into spiders