View Single Post
Old 10-27-2006, 03:12 AM   #161
Ray Jones
@Ray Jones
Ray Jones's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,302
10 year veteran!  LF Jester  Helpful!  Forum Veteran 
Of course, I do know very well that I am made of Quarks and whatnot.

Originally Posted by windu6
What kind of magic are you talking about?
The metaphoric one. I was just asking, why, if it was really God, he should have put life into place with just a fingersnap (hence MAGIC) instead of doing it like he did with the other things he possibly created (standard pattern).

Help by what?
God. My point was, if god really created life, he technically created it already by creating the universe, thus he helped along to get it going in the right direction.

What else do you believe it will be?
If early life didn't have RNA/DNA then it's a good bet that our science of biology won't get the answer, since it only tells us of Earth's life history.
I don't know. And I was talking about early life on earth, and from the point of view that the life as we know it developed on earth. I just tried to say, that we don't know if all life on earth had DNA from the begin with, or if there weren't other "techniques" existent for the same purpose, which did not "make it". This would fit into the common concept of evolution.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Bad Jae, having silly thoughts....

I suddenly have a picture of a pink Energizer bunny beating on that darn drum while rolling across the bottom of a primordial soupy ocean....
So how do you think the fire would fit into this scenario?

So what do you propose instead of RNA/DNA?
Uuuuhm. Excellent question? Maybe one of those LEGO construction plans? Really, I don't know. In the end it might have been just kind of pre-DNA, maybe a very short one or just using two proteins or another set of proteins, like that. Maybe there were the usual evolutionary attempts for pre-DNA. Something that finally made "cells" which had it "better" than those which didn't. Maybe because those without kind of mutated, exploded or couldn't reproduce in form of clone like copies (you get the point), whilst those who had developed pre-DNA were able to start the run for "Who'll be the first err..dino-beaver?"


Originally Posted by windu6
The calculation of Chaos is approximations, the solutions to the nonlinear differential equations aren't exact solutions.
The solutions change each time the calculation is peform.
Nope, chaotic equations behave just like normal equations, in fact they're basically just iterated equations. Thus, given the same variables, they give the same results after the same number of iterations, so we are able to display those fancey fractals (Feigenbaum, Mandelbrot, etc) But, due to the fact of iteration, the smallest possible variation in one variable can have an immense effect on the result, which again can dissapear right with the next iteration.
The calculation of chaos is totally exact, but *only* if you know every single variable of a chaotic system and its exact value. Of course we're not (yet) able to get all those information to calculate a big chaotic system of "real life" like weather. What we are able to do is, we can take a limited set of variables which are known to influence a system the most and use these for an approximate calculation of what might happen. Provided that we found the proper equations already, of course.

I have to agree that God or some intelligent being created life in this universe.
I don't. But it might as well be possible, like for instance we could be like a simulation of the universe, I mean a real good one, technically perfect, beyond our imagination. Like someone (like "real humans") wanted to know how things went, gained really a ton of cool knowledge about the whole universe or whatever thing and just "copied" it. Maybe we, as simulation, are all what's left of some high tech space race which was just interested in their own history. Or maybe we are gonna be the one to do so. I don't know, really.

What I doubt is that anything was created in the sense of just putting something somewhere. At least not within this universe. And whatever caused the universe to exist, indirectly caused life to exist because life as we know it "needs" this very universe we happen to live in. There is no certain necessity that life itself had to be "created" after that, because obviously life can exist within this universe. And I don't freaking care what people call this "cause of the universe", may it be God, popsicles or Ray Jones, it's all the same: the "thing" that "made" the universe exist. They all address the same issue by saying God, Big Bang or anything like that, they often just don't realise.
Starting from that point of view most religious "theories" about "creation" seem to become interpretable and kind of make sense (except they're based on some decent LSD experiences).
Of course, these "stories" come from a time where evolution, for instance, was not really "invented" yet, so what does one expect should be written in these religious texts? In the end, it doesn't matter for the aim of the text itself, so an analogy was drawn to normal life according to the best knowledge people had back then: things are created. They build houses, made swords, woved cloth, all that. So why not describe it like that, lacking of a better explanation.

The result is the same: birds, humans, earth, universe, everything, it does exist.

Of course there is still that unanswer question of who created God? Who created the creator of God?
Who created this damn infinite repeating pattern of creators.
This is not of importance, because it still ends in one question: What's the beginning of it all. This seem to be not even a religious question, because even the most non religious nut (me) wants to know that.

What the hell ultimately determine what life is?
Other than our bias Earth bound knowlege of the definition of life.
Life is per defintion very simple to describe: It eats and thus makes shyte (in the simpliest form: it breathes, in other words: it needs to take energy out of its surrounding and replaces it with something else), interacts with its environment (it reacts to its environmental dependencies, i.e.: take away the source of energy and it'll die), it reproduces on its own (yeah, ba-bey! ), it can die (read: stop having the aforementioned attributes). That should be universal applicable to all life everywhere, else it has to be seen as something else, hmm.. maybe undead?

Nothing is impossible !
That is not what I said. I just said that there is not logical reasoning possible that someone, who is (per definition) a form of life, can (literally) create this very life he is already "made of".

Last edited by Ray Jones; 10-27-2006 at 03:49 PM. Reason: I'm made of typos, eh!
Ray Jones is offline   you may: