• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Life comes from Life"!

Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
exchemist said:
Yes, I rather like this insight. We were all built up from the chemicals circulating in our mother's blood, until the time of our birth. After that of course we consumed a lot more material, initially from our mothers and then from the external world, to build our bodies further.

And this is why I have always found the thermodynamic argument of some creationists so strange. They like to argue that order cannot arise spontaneously, and yet, as our bodies take shape in the womb, that is exactly what is happening, as it does with the development of every organism from its seed or egg!
Click to expand...

The "order cannot" thing is just so dumb I can hardly believe
anyone would try to use it, convince themselves with it.

A person panning from gold knows the river has sorted
sediments and concentrated the heaviest ones in certain
areas.

Anyone who has seen frost crystals on a window notice
order from chaos.

Did you see that there is even a natural process that
can concentrate meteorites?
 
osgart

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
If life proceeds from non life due to a particular arrangement of molecules, what is so special about that arrangement that life becomes of it?

You have not explained life by material necessity. The best you can do is show how the channel to life is created with your special arrangement.

Life is its own unique properties not reducible to any material knowable.

This is an endless argument and how you perceive your sequiturs is going to determine if you are a believer or non believer. It's a materialist intuition that life comes from non life, and merely accessing life doesn't prove anything about where life came from.

There will always be the explanatory gap even when abiogenesis reaches it's ultimate potential. The gap is the experience to the material. That gap is permanent and thus no doors will ever be shut from belief in the spiritual.

It's a battle of intuitions. Side A says case closed, Side B says the door is wide open for the spiritual. It will always be.

Two vastly different intuitions and each side will solidify their logic and be totally unable to convert the other.

There is no slam dunk for either side.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
osgart said:
If life proceeds from non life due to a particular arrangement of molecules, what is so special about that arrangement that life becomes of it?

You have not explained life by material necessity. The best you can do is show how the channel to life is created with your special arrangement.

Life is its own unique properties not reducible to any material knowable.

This is an endless argument and how you perceive your sequiturs is going to determine if you are a believer or non believer. It's a materialist intuition that life comes from non life, and merely accessing life doesn't prove anything about where life came from.

There will always be the explanatory gap even when abiogenesis reaches it's ultimate potential. The gap is the experience to the material. That gap is permanent and thus no doors will ever be shut from belief in the spiritual.

It's a battle of intuitions. Side A says case closed, Side B says the door is wide open for the spiritual. It will always be.

Two vastly different intuitions and each side will solidify their logic and be totally unable to convert the other.

There is no slam dunk for either side.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "special" arrangement?
Do you know of a bright line distinction between living
and non living?
If there is none, then "special" has no meaning here.

What "gap" are you talking about?


Why do you think it is about "intuitions"?
SOME of us like data, not just feelings.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
osgart said:
If life proceeds from non life due to a particular arrangement of molecules, what is so special about that arrangement that life becomes of it?

You have not explained life by material necessity. The best you can do is show how the channel to life is created with your special arrangement.

Life is its own unique properties not reducible to any material knowable.

This is an endless argument and how you perceive your sequiturs is going to determine if you are a believer or non believer. It's a materialist intuition that life comes from non life, and merely accessing life doesn't prove anything about where life came from.

There will always be the explanatory gap even when abiogenesis reaches it's ultimate potential. The gap is the experience to the material. That gap is permanent and thus no doors will ever be shut from belief in the spiritual.

It's a battle of intuitions. Side A says case closed, Side B says the door is wide open for the spiritual. It will always be.

Two vastly different intuitions and each side will solidify their logic and be totally unable to convert the other.

There is no slam dunk for either side.
Click to expand...
The scientific position on abiogenesis is not "intuition", nor is it "materialist".

It is purely the application of the scientific method of enquiry to the issue. Science seeks natural explanations for what we see in nature.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Iymus said:
I don't see proving life comes from life as plain wrong but good intentions.
Click to expand...

Well, it does not need proving. We see it over and over and
over.
Proving life cannot come from non life, though, is another matter,
and probably impossible

In the event, that was not the actual intent, which was to show
that god is behind the existence of life, and that those
who think otherwise are stubborn and stupid.

if you can find the right in any of it, you have special devices
unavailable to the rest of us.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
shunyadragon said:
All the statements in the above are false, and no facts here since your arguing from a religious agenda thousands of years old, and not science. Yes, life can come from life, and also the first life arose from non-life.
Click to expand...
The first life arose from non life? Absolutely false. You BELIEVE it did, you have FAITH that it did, but the evidence that it did does not exist.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
exchemist said:
The scientific position on abiogenesis is not "intuition", nor is it "materialist".

It is purely the application of the scientific method of enquiry to the issue. Science seeks natural explanations for what we see in nature.
Click to expand...
The scientific method applied to abiogenesis has shown that the scientific method has not come even close to explaining or demonstrating abiogenesis.
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
theQuestion said:
Where did I hear THAT before?

View attachment 36901
Click to expand...
1) 1.4 million species, all looking different on the outside, but have the same mechanical system and building blocks. The only difference is how the DNA is put together, and we do know mutations happens, and how, and what those change does. Besides, there are far more than 1.4 millions species. There are in the 10's of millions. And that's only less than 1% of all the species that have existed on the planet.

2) Even fossil is a transitional fossil. Every living being is a transition. There are no stops in between. We're all a representation of a transition between "before" and "later".

3) There are many links between humans and chimps. Not sure where you got that information from, but there's plenty of evidence and fossils to prove the link.

4) It's not foolish to believe in facts and evidence. If a misleading cartoon is the argument against evolution... well, then it rather shows how foolish the arguments against evolution are.
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Thief said:
yes of course.....found on planet earth
Click to expand...
And in space. And in other star systems. And amino acids and organics found in enormous quantities in space.

Everything is alive. It's only a matter of perspective and definitions. Creating definitions that limit the view is a human invention.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Ouroboros said:
And in space. And in other star systems. And amino acids and organics found in enormous quantities in space.

Everything is alive. It's only a matter of perspective and definitions. Creating definitions that limit the view is a human invention.
Click to expand...
An amino acid on a meteorite is not alive. It is absurd to say "everything is alive". If you take that view, what is meant when we say something dies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top