Spontaneous Life?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Spurven Ten Sing
_Emeritus
Posts: 1284
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:01 am

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _Spurven Ten Sing »

Ah, an academic from my side of the aisle. I knew I liked you, I just could never pinpoint why.

It's also much magnetic personality, maybe the fact I am a major fan of Christianity?

And here we get to the meat of it. Why? What is it that causes them to do so?

The chemistry of lipids and hydrodynamics would answer that. I know next to nothing about those, though.

Why would they want to do that?

They don't want to do anything, they are chemicals. They follow chemical laws and such. Why does water freeze?

Yes, but do you? Do you have life? What does that mean?

I say you have both, or, the question makes no sense. (NO, I am NOT a postmodernist)

Interesting thought. As you might guess, I would vehemently disagree. But why do you say so?


One sign of a possible cultural construct is that the definition itself is abstract and there are no boundaries.

This sound more of philosophy than science. Aren't we supposed to defer to science exclusively? tongue in cheek, by the way.


Ha! It's basic social theory, in my opinion.


I might offer this. Let's assume that all the explanations that have been offered, and will be offered, are correct. One still can't get around the idea that life is more than chemical reactions. The stuff of life is much more than synapses firing. Even at the smallest scale.

Life is "simply", in a physical sense, "merely" chemical. I look at it this way, it's like chocolate chip cookies. They are also "merely" the sum of their ingredients. Knowing the recipe does not spoil the taste, does it?
"The best website in prehistory." -Paid Actor www.cavemandiaries.com
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _harmony »

2 points:

1. I thought scientists figured that water once existed on Mars.

2. I thought scientists found another planet in another galaxy that they thought had the necessary requirements for life as we know it.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _Fence Sitter »

harmony wrote:2 points:

1. I thought scientists figured that water once existed on Mars.

2. I thought scientists found another planet in another galaxy that they thought had the necessary requirements for life as we know it.

Harmony,

They have discovered numerous planets in other galaxies that fall with in the category of a planet that could support life. Based on what they have discovered so far the number of such planets will probably incredibly high.

See here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet
Last edited by Guest on Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _Ceeboo »

Hey chap

Chap wrote:
How does the statement that the oxygenation of the earth's atmosphere (easily traceable in the geological record) radically changed the chemical conditions from those under which life is thought to have been formed count as a faith statement? That is just a fact of chemistry.

How does the statement that the existence of life that is already making intensive use of available chemical nutrients makes the survival of new proto-life difficult count as a faith statement? That is just a fact about what living things do to their environment.


Please forgive me if I don't answer your two "how does" questions to me (I just don't want to get off topic from the questions I ask in the OP) Perhaps another thread?

Anyway, is your answer to biogenesis cemented in life already making use of nutrients and oxygen levels in the atmosphere?

As far as a fact of chemistry goes, can you tell me (scientifically) if it is a fact that you need life to get life?
If so, can you offer your scientific explanation of how life began from inorganic matter?

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo
_Bond James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _Bond James Bond »

Ceeboo wrote:You respond by asking me a question? (Bizarre)

Not only am I "okay with spontaneous creation", I would offer that I believe that humans were created (by the Creator) as we see them today.


Peace,
Ceeboo


Just pointing out the flaw in your logic where you're okay that God would create fully functional humans a few thousand years ago and yet are "agnostic" about the Big Bang theory where life evolved from the first one celled organisms that God might have "created" in the primordial soup.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _huckelberry »

Ceeboo, I think the question of why we do not see life restarting anew over and over has been well answered. Present living forms are hungry and would devour any starts and it is rare.

The center of your question is closer to observing that once one starts mentioning the steps one might notice that the distance between simple molocules together and reproducing organism is very very very large. Why would that distance get crossed?. Either alomic structure is set up to lead to life or its avialablity for living structure was utilized by intentional combination by design. Either of those two possiblties appears extradinary enough to suggest a source harmonious with living, God.

I am unsure what is added by fussing over what is living or not. There is no evolution until you have reproducing structures for which survival of the fittest can apply.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _Ceeboo »

Bond James Bond wrote:
Ceeboo wrote:You respond by asking me a question? (Bizarre)

Not only am I "okay with spontaneous creation", I would offer that I believe that humans were created (by the Creator) as we see them today.


Peace,
Ceeboo


Just pointing out the flaw in your logic where you're okay that God would create fully functional humans a few thousand years ago and yet are "agnostic" about the Big Bang theory where life evolved from the first one celled organisms that God might have "created" in the primordial soup.


Still no answer to the OP? (Very telling)

Anyway, I thought I would correct you on this post.
I am not agnostic concerning the Big Bang (I thought I have been very clear on this, m ore than once, and I also think I am very consistent with poting my beliefs/positions with you. I wish you would consider, in return, offering me a mere hint of what your opinions/beliefs are)

I do not believe in the Big Bang! (As I have posted nemerous times on this very board and once on this very thread)

I am agnostic on the gae of the earth. As i have posted before (and for the last time to you), I do find the YEC position/stances to be extremely interesting and most worthy of at least consideration. I do not mirror the opinion of many that the YEC position is "ignorant", "silly" and/or "laughable".

This is the second time you have posted in this thread about me or my beliefs and have yet to offer anything concerning your view, perspective, beliefs, or opinion about the OP. WHY?

Peace,
Ceeboo
_Spurven Ten Sing
_Emeritus
Posts: 1284
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:01 am

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _Spurven Ten Sing »

I thought I addressed the OP.....
"The best website in prehistory." -Paid Actor www.cavemandiaries.com
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _Chap »

Ceeboo wrote:Hey chap

Chap wrote:
How does the statement that the oxygenation of the earth's atmosphere (easily traceable in the geological record) radically changed the chemical conditions from those under which life is thought to have been formed count as a faith statement? That is just a fact of chemistry.

How does the statement that the existence of life that is already making intensive use of available chemical nutrients makes the survival of new proto-life difficult count as a faith statement? That is just a fact about what living things do to their environment.


Please forgive me if I don't answer your two "how does" questions to me (I just don't want to get off topic from the questions I ask in the OP) Perhaps another thread?


OK. Until you justify your claims that the scientific explanations you have been offered 'sound like faith statements', we can consider them withdrawn.

Ceeboo wrote:Anyway, is your answer to biogenesis cemented in life already making use of nutrients and oxygen levels in the atmosphere?


Please see my post. So far as my reading goes, it is probably a crucial point that the early earth had very low levels of oxygen in the atmosphere - i.e. the atmosphere was reducing rather than oxidizing. If you do not understand what I mean by those terms, I am not sure that it makes a lot of sense for this discussion to continue.

Do you know anything about chemistry? I appreciate you don't want to answer questions, but unless you make it clear whether (for instance) the oxidation/reduction distinction means anything to you how on earth can anyone frame an answer that will make sense to you?


Ceeboo wrote:As far as a fact of chemistry goes, can you tell me (scientifically) if it is a fact that you need life to get life? If so, can you offer your scientific explanation of how life began from inorganic matter?


On your first question, I certainly would not make such a claim, i.e. "you need life to get life". Why would I do that?

On the second question, I would not want to take the responsibility (or, to be frank, the time) needed for framing a succinct but accessible answer to that question on a board like this. I'd rather leave it to someone with more skill in biochemistry than I can command without having to do quite a lot of revision of things I have read in the past.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Spontaneous Life?

Post by _Ceeboo »

Hi STS

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:I thought I addressed the OP.....


I don't know if this was to me?

If it was, I already offered you my response about "there is nothing spontaneous about life". My answer is basically, if life began from inorganic matter (life from non-life), I can't imagine another choice but spontaneous.

Peace,
Ceeboo
Post Reply