The Bacteria.

[LuisDantas]

I think the psychology or statistics had nothing to do with someone tell you personal secrects.

And yet it has been consistently demonstrated that such is the case.

 

[Windwalker]

Not true, it's your conclusion and not my points

Oh, but it is exactly your point. Your point in trying to lead this discussion, and what you've said about the boiling of bacteria can be "boiled" down to one point only. Namely, "Science doesn't have an explanation for it, therefore it's an act of God (or Magic)". That is exactly your point. Be truthful. Lying is a sin.

 

[FearGod]

So you presume to be capable of knowing better than what is actually known and researched just because?

There is a name for such an attitude. Ironically, it used to be associated with the desire to challenge the Gods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

No, i use both, my mind and what science found out, and my reply was specific when the poster
asked me from where i got the information that the bacterial cell is delicate, it's like asking me
to prove that the balloons are delicate by giving him a source.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, i use both, my mind and what science found out,

As long as you feel entitled to ignore parts of it as fits your fancy, apparently.

Come to think of it, you seem to think that science is not science at all, but some sort of "lay scripture".

 

[Jumi]

Scientist believe that bacteria which existed on earth before 4.5 billions years ago were the ones that resist
harsh conditions, so those who got better resistance has to survive and pass their genes and then how you
could explain that bacteria evolved to less resistance organisms?

Less resistant to what? Let's say you have bacteria that thrive in around 80C plus or minus 20 degrees environment. You could say they are heat resistant. Now if environment cools to 60C, the individuals that thrive in lower heat will thrive. Resistance to more heat becomes useless. The ones that multiply are now the rare inviduals that thrive best in 60C and the individuals that can't adjust to 60C at all will die out in time.

 

[FearGod]

Oh, but it is exactly your point. Your point in trying to lead this discussion, and what you've said about the boiling of bacteria can be "boiled" down to one point only. Namely, "Science doesn't have an explanation for it, therefore it's an act of God (or Magic)". That is exactly your point. Be truthful. Lying is a sin.

Believe it or not, i have no hidden intention, just discussing bacteria because it's thought to be the origin of life on earth.
Still i can see bacteria having its own world, the unseen world, even though it can't be seen, but it can kill us and have its ways
to resist our medicines and it pollutes our foods..etc, similarly the ambiguous organism, the virus, which is living and not living
and can kill us and both actually did.

I understand and agree of course with science that Bacteria existed first and they're still existing, then next came
to existence the animals world which is even different than the plant's world.

Some of the bacteria are enemies while some others are friendly, i discussed in one thread our gut flora
and how some bacteria are defending and supporting our digestive system.

Science and knowledge is our source to survive and for achieving a better life and religion never forbids us from gaining knowledge
and the Islamic golden ages till the 13th century was a proof by itself that religion promote for knowledge and science and not the contrary.

 

[FearGod]

Less resistant to what? Let's say you have bacteria that thrive in around 80C plus or minus 20 degrees environment. You could say they are heat resistant. Now if environment cools to 60C, the individuals that thrive in lower heat will thrive. Resistance to more heat becomes useless. The ones that multiply are now the rare inviduals that thrive best in 60C and the individuals that can't adjust to 60C at all will die out in time.

Do you really believe that the bacteria who can survive high temperatures which doesn't also mean that it can't survive lesser
temperature such as the 60 °C will have less chances than the one who can survive only on temperature below 60 °C.

In the harsh environment only the hermophiles were able to survive and to pass their genes and that's how the condition
of earth was before 4.5 billions years ago.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Do you really believe that the bacteria who can survive high temperatures which doesn't also mean that it can't survive lesser
temperature such as the 60 °C will have less chances than the one who can survive only on temperature below 60 °C.

In the harsh environment only the hermophiles were able to survived and passed their genes and that's how the condition
of earth was before 4.5 billions years ago.

The earth wasn't in any kind of condition before 4.5 billion years ago.

 

[FearGod]

The earth wasn't in any kind of condition before 4.5 billion years ago.

Why do you think so?
https://www.boundless.com/biology/t...he-origins-of-archaea-and-bacteria-560-11772/

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why do you think so?
https://www.boundless.com/biology/t...he-origins-of-archaea-and-bacteria-560-11772/

Because the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

 

[FearGod]

Because the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

Yes and the environment was in a harsh condition.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes and the environment was in a harsh condition.

What I'm saying is that the Earth was hardly a planet at that time. It was mostly molten lava settling in the dust of our most recent super nova. Life didn't exist then. Life began to develop around 3.8 billion years ago. So about a billion years after its molten creation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hi Folks...

Very interesting thread...To my mind though - some of the things that get classed as "alive" - I would definately have to dispute..

A bacteria - a virus - not alive at all...it may be an ANIMATED FORM - but it is not truly ALIVE....To my mind, to be TRULY alive - the INDIVIDUAL must be capable of realising their OWN existance....Certainly, for a form such as a bacteria or mircobe this cannot apply - and even for much MUCH more complex forms,this status of truly alive does not apply either...

Most insects for example are NOT truly alive either - they are animated forms that act purely on PROGRAMMED INSTINCT - they are automotons - robots..Even some larger animals,higher forms we may think, but animlas such as cows and sheep - likewise, not TRULY alive - still largely instinctual and none sentient...

Indeed, thinking about it, I find crucial criteria arise that I personally would use to define TRUE life - the form MUST be sufficiently SELF AWARE - posess a SENTIENT mind - and preferably, have a good EMOTIONAL capacity as well.....Certainly if the animal does not even realise that it IS alive, if it is purely instinctual and following genetic imperatives only then that is not really being alive at all - so a SENTIENT Self aware mind is a definate pre requisite to TRUE life..

Once the animal form develops BOTH Sentient mind AND sufficient EMOTIONAL capacity -then it begins the real journey as it is now capable of sustaining it Self as an ETERNAL SOUL..

Really - life - existance - is NOT about form, structure, physical conditions - not at all - TRUE LIFE - is all about MIND - becoming fully SELF AWARE - attaining SELF GNOSIS...The form is IRRELEVANT - eventually every mind will reach and disclose its own full potential - for we all exist as a unique form within a SINGLE fully omniscient MIND that caused it all to unfold..There is no seperation at all - only the ILLUSION of a physical form that the mind currently inhabits and identifies it Self with...I and My Father are ONE - always - life is a journey of Self discovery - existance here is a progression of stages of Self realisation that takes us right back to this Divine Source of it all...For a Human Being - life here is a journey of Self REMEMBERING - Whoa nd What we are BEFORE we took these illusionary forms..For those with ears to hear.......

Well much goes against the common definition of life, what is living, what is not, yet life is quite a mysterious phenomina defying definition altogether.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Believe it or not, i have no hidden intention, just discussing bacteria because it's thought to be the origin of life on earth.
Still i can see bacteria having its own world, the unseen world, even though it can't be seen, but it can kill us and have its ways
to resist our medicines and it pollutes our foods..etc, similarly the ambiguous organism, the virus, which is living and not living
and can kill us and both actually did.

I understand and agree of course with science that Bacteria existed first and they're still existing, then next came
to existence the animals world which is even different than the plant's world.

Some of the bacteria are enemies while some others are friendly, i discussed in one thread our gut flora
and how some bacteria are defending and supporting our digestive system.

Science and knowledge is our source to survive and for achieving a better life and religion never forbids us from gaining knowledge
and the Islamic golden ages till the 13th century was a proof by itself that religion promote for knowledge and science and not the contrary.

I tend to think of the introduction of DNA and the process of replication as the origin

 

[FearGod]

What I'm saying is that the Earth was hardly a planet at that time. It was mostly molten lava settling in the dust of our most recent super nova. Life didn't exist then. Life began to develop around 3.8 billion years ago. So about a billion years after its molten creation.

Yes it was a dead planet before life started.

 

[FearGod]

I tend to think of the introduction of DNA and the process of replication as the origin

I agree, the non-living molecules as the origin, that's abiogenesis or life arising from non-living matter.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes it was a dead planet before life started.

I would use the term nonliving rather than dead but I don't know if in your native language they are the same or not. What is the translation of the word "dead" and the word "nonliving" in your native language? Are they the same or are they different? LIke for example would you say a body is the same as a rock?

 

[FearGod]

I would use the term nonliving rather than dead but I don't know if in your native language they are the same or not. What is the translation of the word "dead" and the word "nonliving" in your native language? Are they the same or are they different? LIke for example would you say a body is the same as a rock?

Like the dead sea, nothing live in it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Like the dead sea, nothing live in it.

Well now I"m actually actually you a language question Setting aside the actual discussion I"m genuinely curious.

 

[FearGod]

Well now I"m actually actually you a language question Setting aside the actual discussion I"m genuinely curious.

I know what you're driving at, you mean "dead" means it was living at one point of time before being dead,
but dead can means has no life as well, here's the meaning for dead

http://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-en/ميت/