CharlieM wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 12:31 pm
I may have mentioned God a couple of times. But anyway, it's obvious to me that human history pivots around events in the area of Palestine a couple of thousand years ago.
And modern science was born out of European Christian culture. Atheism is the rebellious child of Christian parents.
You know, what you post says more about your priors than the topics you choose to opine on, as has been ppinted out to you a number of times now.
Also lol
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
In their expeditions the Crusaders took more than physical artifacts back from their travels. They also took a lot of knowledge and expertise from the Muslim and Jewish cultures they came into contact with.
It doesn't matter that the Christian West was not the originator of much knowledge and Christian scholars were just relaying such received knowledge. It is still a fact that modern science developed via these Christian teachers. and that is the point.
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
CharlieM wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 10:30 am
No, viruses don't count, because they are not self-reproducing. Without a host cell and its ability to reproduce genetic scripts viruses have no viability as members of the living world.
That’s some stupid crap.
Your living world is made up entirely of lovely host cells for viruses. Your estimate of viruses’ viability is wrong.
A virus does the very same thing a cell does: it copies itself. It does that even better than cells do it. Viruses replicate for far less energy than cells use.
Because they can't reproduce by themselves (without a host), viruses are not considered living. Nor do viruses have cells: they're very small, much smaller than the cells of living things, and are basically just packages of nucleic acid and protein.
So the minimum requirement for reproduction is a cell. It doesn't matter how you slice up the energy allocation or how smart you think virus strategy is. The fact of the matter is that cells are an essential part of the process. Take the cell away and tell me what happens.
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
I think that viruses in general get a bad press. Without viruses in our gut biomes we could not survive.
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
You claim to be rubbish the continuation of human reproduction involves a reduction to one single individual cell? And likewise in the course of evolution the number of living populations become dramatically reduced? For those who know of Victor Meldrew, as he would say, "I do not believe it!"
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
CharlieM wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 12:31 pm
I may have mentioned God a couple of times. But anyway, it's obvious to me that human history pivots around events in the area of Palestine a couple of thousand years ago.
And modern science was born out of European Christian culture. Atheism is the rebellious child of Christian parents.
More Lies for Jeebus, Charlie?
Atheism predates Christainity. Here you go: History of atheism. Knock yourself out.
I see I'm going to get picked up on the slightest ambiguity. Of course I meant the current modern version of atheism as a world-view practiced in Western society.
Atheism in the modern West is the rebellious child of Christian parents.
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
The_Metatron wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 1:31 pm
Shift that goal post, eh Charlie?
Please try to expand that question into an argument worth responding to.
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
CharlieM wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 10:30 am
No, viruses don't count, because they are not self-reproducing. Without a host cell and its ability to reproduce genetic scripts viruses have no viability as members of the living world.
That’s some stupid crap.
Your living world is made up entirely of lovely host cells for viruses. Your estimate of viruses’ viability is wrong.
A virus does the very same thing a cell does: it copies itself. It does that even better than cells do it. Viruses replicate for far less energy than cells use.
Because they can't reproduce by themselves (without a host), viruses are not considered living. Nor do viruses have cells: they're very small, much smaller than the cells of living things, and are basically just packages of nucleic acid and protein.
So the minimum requirement for reproduction is a cell. It doesn't matter how you slice up the energy allocation or how smart you think virus strategy is. The fact of the matter is that cells are an essential part of the process. Take the cell away and tell me what happens.
Of course cells are essential! As it turns out, luckily for viruses, those cells are to be found everywhere. And, so are viruses. The environment changes, we change, so do the viruses. Adaptable, just like cellular organisms.
Not only do viruses reproduce, they adapt. Why is that not life? What more than this do you do?
The_Metatron wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 1:31 pm
Shift that goal post, eh Charlie?
Please try to expand that question into an argument worth responding to.
Sure. You wrote this:
…modern science was born out of European Christian culture.
That image in Arabic isn’t European and it isn’t christian either. It may very well pre-date Christ as well, I don’t know. Regardless, that sure looks like something on geometry, doesn’t it?
Your goal post shift was when you pooh poohed that Arabic geometry lesson that made your claim about where modern science was born look stupid.
Stop moving the goal posts. When you’re wrong, take it like a grown-up.
The_Metatron wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 4:46 pm
That image in Arabic isn’t European and it isn’t christian either. It may very well pre-date Christ as well, I don’t know. Regardless, that sure looks like something on geometry, doesn’t it?
Because they can't reproduce by themselves (without a host), viruses are not considered living. Nor do viruses have cells: they're very small, much smaller than the cells of living things, and are basically just packages of nucleic acid and protein.
So the minimum requirement for reproduction is a cell. It doesn't matter how you slice up the energy allocation or how smart you think virus strategy is. The fact of the matter is that cells are an essential part of the process. Take the cell away and tell me what happens.
Of course cells are essential! As it turns out, luckily for viruses, those cells are to be found everywhere. And, so are viruses. The environment changes, we change, so do the viruses. Adaptable, just like cellular organisms.
Why would I argue with that? The point is that the minimum requirement for any form of life to reproduce involves a living cell. If you think that isn't the case, please explain how it is achieved.
The_Metatron wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 4:32 pm
Not only do viruses reproduce, they adapt. Why is that not life? What more than this do you do?
Again, if you want to say that viruses are alive, I have no problem with this. It doesn't even touch upon the fact that cells are required for reproduction.
If you cannot see the limits of viral abilities compared to what humans are capable of, then I see no point in trying to convince you of the differences.
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
The_Metatron wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 1:31 pm
Shift that goal post, eh Charlie?
Please try to expand that question into an argument worth responding to.
Sure. You wrote this:
…modern science was born out of European Christian culture.
That image in Arabic isn’t European and it isn’t christian either. It may very well pre-date Christ as well, I don’t know. Regardless, that sure looks like something on geometry, doesn’t it?
Your goal post shift was when you pooh poohed that Arabic geometry lesson that made your claim about where modern science was born look stupid.
I have nothing but the highest regard for the Muslim scholars who built on the knowledge of peoples such as the ancient Indians and the ancient Greeks such as Euclid. And as the scholarship of the Medieval Christians was born out of the scholarship of the ancient Greeks, Arabs, Hebrews, Babylonians, Indians and other Eastern traditions, so modern secular science was born out of the Western Christian tradition. For example the university in my local area was founded by a bishop.
The_Metatron wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 4:46 pm
Stop moving the goal posts. When you’re wrong, take it like a grown-up.
The only goalposts I am supposed to have moved are the ones arbitrarily set in your own mind from what you imagine my position to be. You are the one that has decided their position and dimensions without any input from me.
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
CharlieM wrote: ↑Aug 02, 2024 2:26 pm
In my opinion Galileo and Bruno were fighting on the side of free thinking against both dogmatic science and dogmatic religion.
The birth of modern science began with a change in the direction of thinking instigated by the likes of Bacon, Galileo and Bruno. They turned outward to nature when looking for the work of the Divine. Up until then the teaching of the Schoolmen such as Thomas Aquinas mainly relied on the authority of Aristotle. This organic type of understanding was superseded by a view which led to the modern mechanistic understanding and even to rational skepticism.
What I would like to see is a move to a more organic view again. Only this time without any appeals to authority. Keeping the scientific method, the careful, precise examination of the natural world but with the more realistic organic understanding of the living world while restricting the mechanistic outlook to its rightful sphere, inorganic lifeless nature.
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
CharlieM wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 2:14 pm
I see I'm going to get picked up on the slightest ambiguity.
Wait until you see how they react when you misspell a word, CharlieM. They will probably make a YouTube video about it.
Well, as they say, "There is no such thing as bad publisity"
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivitive from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Johnny Blade wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2024 12:23 amIf there is no conceivable way to bridge the gap, logically, between your secular theory of the cosmos with your secular theory of life, then what good is either theory really?
Cito di Pense wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2024 7:43 amYou're doing the same thing. In your case, "bridging the gap" would appear to be requiring a complete explanation of everything.
I don't think so. There's only 3 gaps that I ever talk about.
Well, make that four actually, But that's neither here or there
Cito di Pense wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2024 7:43 am
You could try to read, for example, about autopoeisis.
Ok I'll take your advice. Never heard of it before. Looks interesting.
Johnny Blade wrote: ↑Aug 01, 2024 12:23 am
Never get into a battle of wits with a Sicilian when your life is on the line.
Isnt that a scene from The Prince's Bride ? How would a young whippersnapper like you know that movie?
CharlieM wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 10:30 am
No, viruses don't count, because they are not self-reproducing. Without a host cell and its ability to reproduce genetic scripts viruses have no viability as members of the living world.
That’s some stupid crap.
Your living world is made up entirely of lovely host cells for viruses. Your estimate of viruses’ viability is wrong.
A virus does the very same thing a cell does: it copies itself. It does that even better than cells do it. Viruses replicate for far less energy than cells use.
Because they can't reproduce by themselves (without a host), viruses are not considered living. Nor do viruses have cells: they're very small, much smaller than the cells of living things, and are basically just packages of nucleic acid and protein.
So the minimum requirement for reproduction is a cell. It doesn't matter how you slice up the energy allocation or how smart you think virus strategy is. The fact of the matter is that cells are an essential part of the process. Take the cell away and tell me what happens.
Tapeworm anyone. Tapeworms can't reproduce without a host, therefore...
CharlieM wrote: ↑Aug 03, 2024 10:30 am
No, viruses don't count, because they are not self-reproducing. Without a host cell and its ability to reproduce genetic scripts viruses have no viability as members of the living world.
That’s some stupid crap.
Your living world is made up entirely of lovely host cells for viruses. Your estimate of viruses’ viability is wrong.
A virus does the very same thing a cell does: it copies itself. It does that even better than cells do it. Viruses replicate for far less energy than cells use.
Because they can't reproduce by themselves (without a host), viruses are not considered living. Nor do viruses have cells: they're very small, much smaller than the cells of living things, and are basically just packages of nucleic acid and protein.
So the minimum requirement for reproduction is a cell. It doesn't matter how you slice up the energy allocation or how smart you think virus strategy is. The fact of the matter is that cells are an essential part of the process. Take the cell away and tell me what happens.
Khan Academy? You are using Khan Academy for your authoritative definition of life?
You do know their target audience, don’t you? Students. Children. You do know Sal Khan has absolutely no qualifications in pedagogy, don’t you?
Did you notice the lack of peer review in that article to which you linked?
“they’re very small”, eh? So small, in fact, they couldn’t possibly make off with a whole leg. How small is very small, Charlie?
