Honestly, I just wanted to get your take on biofilm. Some people think differently about it. Most teachers, in my experience, are less prepared to divert from ‘dogma’ than actual scientists/researchers. Yes, they’re unicellular life forms. That’s what we know now.
What we know tomorrow could be different.
We’re not so much set on dogma, but we want to see our students pass, and as such I have to blow the whistle on “bacteria are multicellular organisms” because that will lose marks, so I’d be failing in my job.
Also, if bacteria didn’t qualify as unicellular, then the words unicellular and multicellular might as well not exist. Science is vast, and often when we try to classify into two or more groups there are tricky edge cases and overlaps. The broad categories are still useful terms though, we then acknowledge the exceptional cases and it’s all good.
Finally, biofilms are cool (but not on your teeth) and check out those filamentous cyanobacteria!
Yes, I’m aware. I was not calling it dogma, I was calling it ‘dogma’, and I could have worded it better but a realise it’s a teacher’s job to pass on what we know, not figure out what we know.
Additionally, there are lots of words that we used to use in science that now have no meaning due to new findings. Maybe ‘multicellular’ and ‘unicellular’ are completely irrelevant already since we have the words ‘prokaryotic’ and ‘eukaryotic’. I know they don’t mean the same thing, but maybe that doesn’t matter. Maybe, these two words are more relevant to describing life than explaining how many cells its made of.
I was in error when I initially called bacteria ‘multicellular’ and I won’t pretend I misspoke. I was at the time I posted under the impression that this was true. I didn’t try to argue with you. I checked up what you said, and found some interesting bits of scientific opinion that don’t really establish a consensus on whether it matters or not. Then I found that paper and wanted to get your thoughts on it. Anyway, my initial post was really intended just to highlight the amount of time everything takes, and how that’s a limiting factor on whether or not life in some form exists elsewhere in the universe. I’m definitely not as well versed in biological science as I am in cosmological science.
Heh, it’s all cool, I just wanted to correct that single word in your first post.
And of course science changes its position and re-evaluates evidence. That’s why it’s correct - because it acknowledges that it might not be 
If the Universe doesn’t need to have a reason to exist then what reason does the life on Earth have eyes ears a nose and sensations let alone the ability to reproduce?
If the Universe didn’t need life then why does life exist?
Your paradigm is irrelevant saying that the Universe exists because it does.
Like I mentioned before if you take away all life in the Universe and the very elements that life is comprised of, what type of Universe do you have?
If you take away the 11 key elements that the human body is made of:
Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus along with the secondary elements of potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine and magnesium.
What would the Universe look like?
Hydrogen is a main element in most if not all stars across the Universe. You take away hydrogen and there is no life all at in the Universe. So what reason do trillions of stars across the Universe exist?
If a Universe doesn’t need life to exist then it doesn’t stars either.
There is no thinking differently. If it is bio film then it is bio-film. Thinking differently suggests that you want to be different just for the sake of arguing which is what the Flat Earthers do.
Even something as simple to us as a bacteria is actually a very complex multi-cellular organism that can take hundreds of millions of years to evolve from its organic compound roots.
But why does the mult-celluar organism need to evolve from its organic compound roots?
Those roots had to have a blue print for the own blue print that existed before the Big Bang.
Life created the Universe in order to grow and achieve a greater existence of being more than rocks and comets.
No, thinking differently is thinking differently. There’s nothing wrong with being wrong as a result of thinking differently, you just shift your viewpoints to reflect where you went wrong. You’re suggesting that everyone should dogmatically accept the findings of science. The fact is, science is self-correcting by virtue of the fact that some people DO think differently. Otherwise, the findings of science can be disregarded entirely as being dogmatic.
Science isn’t religion. The lab isn’t a church. Thinking differently is REQUIRED for the self-correcting nature of science to resolve itself. The difference with flat earthers, as you reference, is that they don’t shift their viewpoint when their ‘thinking differently’ is actually in opposition to testable, demonstrable, and falsifiable findings.
This is semantics and is the same as “It is what it is.” Replacing words is not thinking differently.
See, here’s you thinking differently. There is no scientific evidence for this assertion, while there is a tonne of scientific evidence that directly contradicts this assertion. So where’s your evidence that it’s true? Thinking differently is great, and this is an interesting hypothesis, but until you’ve proven it, it remains that, an hypothesis. Maybe not even that, since you haven’t based it on scientific observation, so it’s really just a guess.
Then why did you replace the words ‘thinking differently’ with something that they weren’t? You’re contradicting yourself. You are always contradicting yourself. You’re like a living, breathing, walking epitome of self-contradiction, Dryson. Why do you try so hard to be so intellectually inept all the time?
Now you are just being butthurt because people won’t see your opinion as fact.
Since you have stated that Life didn’t create Universe then provide proof positive science from reputable sources that Life didn’t create the Universe.
I’m not insisting that people consider opinion as fact. You’re strawmanning me. Stop projecting your self-inflicted butthurt on me, Dryson.
Life didn’t create the universe. The universe existed before life did. That’s the general consensus in science right now, and it’s backed up by hundreds, if not thousands of years of research, so the burden of proof is on any claim against that. Not the other way around. Just like the claim that the earth is flat.
Moooo…a golden cow bell looks good.
Its the old question which came first, the chicken or the egg?
More importantly why did the chicken need the egg? The chicken needed the egg in order to grow into a chicken. Therefore the chicken assembled the components for what it needed to build the shell from which it grew into a chicken from.
There is no need for a Universe to exist without life being present in the Universe across large regions of the Universe.
With life creating its own need then there simply wouldn’t be a need for the Big Bang.
If Big Bang’s were indeed just something that existed because they just exist, then astronomers would have already have discovered other Universes existing right outside of our own Universe. Universes that would exist because of the same event that started our Universe creating a chain of
Big Bangs. But as such astronomers have only discovered one Universe.
A random variable always creates random results. A direct variable always creates a direct result.
Explain what would happen if you take away the 11 key elements that the human body is made of:
Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus along with the secondary elements of potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine and magnesium.
Take all of these elements out of the Universe and what do you have?
The egg did. There were creatures laying eggs long before chickens existed. It’s a stupid, meaningless question grounded in philosophy with an easily demonstrable answer.
There’s no need for the universe to have a need. It just is. It doesn’t have a purpose, it’s the result of physical phenomena.
Who said it was random? Even chaos theory accepts that unpredictable results are only unpredictable because we don’t understand the math yet.
You’re honestly just posting the same intellectually-illiterate arguments against science that I see time and time again, all easily refuted by demonstrable facts. Not only did the universe exist before life did, life can’t exist without a universe. Time and matter are so intertwined that one simple cannot exist without the other. And if you think matter begins its time as a complex organism, than what you think directly contradicts demonstrable scientific understanding.
And that’s okay, you’re allowed to believe whatever you want, no matter how wrong you are, but if you expect to convince anyone with an IQ consisting of triple digits with even a modicum of scientific understanding of your beliefs, you are actually deluded. You should know, in advance, that you will fail without providing evidence.
Not philosophical questions, but evidence.
Lets do a little check on what the Universe would look like if the same elements that life is comprised of didn’t exist. The first column is the place of the element in the Universe ranked from the most abundant to the least abundant. The second column is the human body that is ranked in the same manner.
The Universe
The Human Body
If we take away the same elements that the human body needs that is most abundant in the Universe based on the list above, what elements do we have left?
Helium - Stars
Neon - Stars
Iron - Stars
Silicon - Stars
Calcium - Life
Phosphorus - Life
Potassium - Life
Chlorine - Life
If a Universe simply exists then why does the Universe need to exist with the same elements that life needs to exist?
There shouldn’t be any need for the elements that life needs to exist in a Universe in order for the Universe to merely exist.
Your post demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry. None of the elements in the human body can exist without the explosion of a star. Not one. The reason they do exist is because stars explode. We are the product of exploding stars, which cannot exist without a universe. Nothing you just posted supports your claim.
You also continue to attribute reason and purpose to things that don’t need either, they just happen. They are the inevitable result of certain fundamental reactions that just happen.
If life created the universe, it also created one that isn’t very generous to life at all. Most of the universe is unlivable. The only mass diversity of life we know of within a few billion light years is our own planet, and even here, a lot of it is uninhabitable. Did someone really design our planet with all these natural disasters so that we might suffer? We also designed a universe that is going to kill us all one day. It’s not going to last forever. Nothing does.
No, my post demonstrates that you merely argue with people because you are follower and do not want to think differently because you cannot handle the ridicule like you are conducting now. So you lament yourself with what others have said to make certain that you are not castigated.
So why would a Universe need to exist without life being present in it all?
Based on your arguments you are stating that humans are what we are and came from where we came.
That is not being different that is called spin.
If a womb didn’t exist then a child wouldn’t be born. If a child wasn’t born then cells would not grow. If cells do not grow then there is no need for energy. If there is no need for energy then there is no reason for a Universe to exist. If there is no need for the Universe to exist then life would never take place in a Universe. If there is no need for life then there is no need for a Universe.
A Universe exists to provide energy for life to use and grow.
At some point in Primordial Space tiny filaments of life re-arranged the structure of the Universe to create the Big Bang or the energy that life needed to become something different.
It is right there in numerous religions and myths. God forbid the Apple of Knowledge to be eaten. Fruit that would illuminate the real world around humanity instead of simply imagining the world with eyes closed.
Then there is Prometheus that stole fire from the Gods and gave it to humans so that they would be able to see in the night and become more than mere cave dwellers.
According to you, there is no ‘thinking differently’.
And no, your post doesn’t demonstrate that at all. It demonstrates, on your part, a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry, and it also demonstrates your tendency to make assumptions and presupposition.
Once again, a universe doesn’t NEED to exist. It just does. You are attributing need/purpose to something that doesn’t need to have one. Why do we NEED earthquakes? Why do we NEED a billion moons around Jupiter? We don’t, they’re just the result of things that happen naturally. Nature doesn’t have an objective. Your argument is, essentially, teleological, and you don’t need a university degree to understand what’s wrong with that argument, nor do you need one to understand that despite your arguments, you still need evidence.
You’re actually starting to sound a bit like William Lane Craig in your reasoning now. Nothing you’ve said or claimed follows with any known and demonstrable laws of the natural universe around us.
Why do we NEED earthquakes?
We need Earthquakes to return material to the core of the Earth. Much like a wood burner that needs a constant fuel source so to does the Earth’s core. Without tectonic plate movement the environment of Earth would become stagnant. Perturbations would not take place that cause work that life needs in order to generate work from that energy is used to achieve.
The problem with your logic is that you do not have any. You are a Troll and nothing more.