[_ Old Earth _] The beginning of life.

[B]

am simply stating that the observable evidence shows that life always begets life.

Can you give me observable evidence that it doesn't

We have agreed that life is nothing more than chemical reactions. Does it take intelligence to combine atoms of hydrogen and oxygen? I would say not.
Granted, we are a little more complex than that, but the sames rules apply to us.

 

[B]

Sorry that should have said

I am simply stating that the observable evidence shows that life always begets life.

Can you give me observable evidence that it doesn't

We have agreed that life is nothing more than chemical reactions. Does it take intelligence to combine atoms of hydrogen and oxygen? I would say not.
Granted, we are a little more complex than that, but the sames rules apply to us.

 

[bibleberean]

am simply stating that the observable evidence shows that life always begets life.

Can you give me observable evidence that it doesn't

We have agreed that life is nothing more than chemical reactions. Does it take intelligence to combine atoms of hydrogen and oxygen? I would say not.
Granted, we are a little more complex than that, but the sames rules apply to us.

You didn't make any sense.

bibleberean(me) stated:

" I am simply stating that the observable evidence shows that life always begets life."

B (you) respond:

"Can you give me observable evidence that it doesn't"

bibleberean now asks:

Say what? :-?

 

[B]

Can you give me observable evidence that it doesn't?

That was your quote. Why are you quoteing it back at me again?

You seem unable to follow the simplist arguments, but here goes.

You say that life doesn't arise from non life. Yet you agree that life is nothing more than a complex chemical reaction.

Are you saying now that chemical reactions do not occur outside of what we would term as life?

If you agree that chemical reactions occur then that is it.

Because all life can be explained by it.

 

[bibleberean]

Can you give me observable evidence that it doesn't?

That was your quote. Why are you quoteing it back at me again?

You seem unable to follow the simplist arguments, but here goes.

You say that life doesn't arise from non life. Yet you agree that life is nothing more than a complex chemical reaction.

Are you saying now that chemical reactions do not occur outside of what we would term as life?

If you agree that chemical reactions occur then that is it.

Because all life can be explained by it.

I quoted it back becuase your question after my quote didn't make sense.

Non life has never produced life based on the observable evidence. Not once. Man cannot produce a single cell by any experiment.

That is all I said.

You accept by faith not evidence that order, design and life can happen without a living designer.

You have a blind faith. ;-)

I have to laugh. :

Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God... "

 

[B]

Non life has never produced life based on the observable evidence. Not once. Man cannot produce a single cell by any experiment.

You're technically wrong here, because many animals have been cloned.

My question after you asked;

Can you give me observable evidence that it doesn't

was: Does it take intelligence to combine atoms of hydrogen and oxygen?

In what way is this hard to understand?

 

[bibleberean]

Non life has never produced life based on the observable evidence. Not once. Man cannot produce a single cell by any experiment.

You're technically wrong here, because many animals have been cloned.

My question after you asked;

[quote:487d9]Can you give me observable evidence that it doesn't

was: Does it take intelligence to combine atoms of hydrogen and oxygen?

In what way is this hard to understand?[/quote:487d9]

Cloning is taking life to beget life. You haven't a clue do you?

 

[B]

You're not answering my questions. It's okay if you don't have the answers.

Cloning invloves DNA, which is a replicating strand of molecules. Cloning is possible because of the knowledge we have of chemistry. That same knowledge lets us know that life is a chemical reaction, no more, no less.

You argue that because life has not been observed springing from a rock then chemically, self replicating cells are impossible.

Do you not believe that cloning has taken place? Because the same theories that have allowed it to work time and again are also used to explain the beginning of life.

I'm guessing you don't have much knowledge of biochemistry.

As a side note, do you still believe the earth is flat?

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Before I start... cloning doesn't necessarily take life. Having said that, let's get to B's statements and see what we can find.

As to Blue's comment about us not seeing life appear, conditions today are different from conditions in the past in two important ways. First, there was little or no molecular oxygen in the atmosphere or oceans when life first appeared. Free oxygen is reactive and would likely have interfered with the formation of complex organic molecules.

This still does not negate the fact that scientists still have yet to observe life begin even in laboratory experiments where conditions are as optimal as they could possibly be and the proposed causes are generated in the best possible ways. And yes, I know the earth would have had millions of years to see this occur if we are to believe the majority of geologists. However, we are trying simulate what would have happened when those conditions were just right, and we can't make it happen. Not only that, but the probability that randomly generated life would be viable and reproducing is so minute that it would have taken thousands of times before we could say that it is within the scientific range of reason - otherwise probability dictates that it is scientifically impossible.

You see, you don't just have to believe that life was created on a violatile planet even when we can't observe it in prime conditions... you also have to believe that this life was created repeatedly or that it was viable and reproducing the very first time! Its just ludicrous.

The life which is around today would scavenge and eat any complex molecules before they could turn into anything approaching new life.

We're talking laboratory experiments where that would not occur.

Furthermore, the development of molecular life took millions, if not hundreds of millions of years. How can we expect to see that in one life time?

Because if we can create the conditions which would create life, then life should be created. The idea is that these conditions would not have occurred but a few times in those millions of years in the natural world. But even when we re-create them, we don't see it happening. And then again, you 've got to either believe that it happened over and over again until one lucky organism was viable and reproducing or you've got to believe that it happened on the first time.

You are making specific claims and setting parameters about your god and I believe these are logically in error.

Perhaps you can show me some of the claims I've made and I'll be happy to show how they are logically required.

Does it take intelligence to combine atoms of hydrogen and oxygen? I would say not.

Combine hydrogen and oxygen atoms and you don't get life.

You say that life doesn't arise from non life. Yet you agree that life is nothing more than a complex chemical reaction.

Whoever is saying that is incorrect. Life is much more than just chemical reactions.

Cloning is possible because of the knowledge we have of chemistry.

No, cloning is possible because of our knowledge of biogenetics. Chemistry is intertwined in all areas of biology, but chemistry alone is only a tiny fraction of the information needed to clone.

That same knowledge lets us know that life is a chemical reaction, no more, no less.

False. If I start a fire, by your definition, then I have created life. I have caused a chemical reaction, have I not? If you do not believe that fire is a chemical reaction, then tell me what is the difference in fire and a cellular organism - when you do that, you will be closer to defining life.

Because the same theories that have allowed it to work time and again are also used to explain the beginning of life.

With all due respect, you're out of your league on this one, and I don't want to be discouraging to you. Cloning is simply the extraction of diroxyneucleic acid strands into a zygote which then has its prior DNA and RNA strands removed. Its quite a complicated process, but is completely different than the idea of self-generated life. Self-generated life proposes that life occured when random acids were electrically charged and brought together so that they began to function in a series of chemical reactions as a single organism. That organism was also viable and able to reproduce. That proposal, in my mind, is ridiculous.

I'm guessing you don't have much knowledge of biochemistry.

I understand you were saying that to Bibleberean, but its not a very nice comment to make.

BL

 

[Gary]

BL... one VERY quick comment. I have followed this thread. You dissect it very well.

Congrats!

GB

 

[bibleberean]

The statement that life can come from non life is always false.

Cloning is not creating life from non life.

That is like saying that a baby can be formed without life.

Cloning is not a totally new concept. Identical twins are natural clones.

"Concerning people, we know that identical twins are real clones. The fertilized egg splits in two, and each of these two 'daughter' cells develops separately. They are individual people with an absolutely identical set of genes. Because of this they have the same innate gifts and talents, as well as the same predisposition to particular illnesses. They have the same colour hair and eyes, the same shoe size and the same features. But, in spite of this, they are two different people: each of them experiences the world in a unique way, and each is uniquely moulded by his or her individual experiences and choices. Both have their own personality, and their own soul."


"Dolly the cloned sheep that started it all was a copy, a clone of the sheep whose udder cell was used. A clone (from Greek klon) is an individual – plant, animal or human being – derived by asexual reproduction from another organism that has the identical hereditary components. Individuals could derive from the same cell (identical twins), or the clone could originate from the cell of another individual."

Source of above quotation.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/cloning.html#box

It took intelligent life to figure out how to duplicate a cell and have it inserted into a womb to produce life.

It takes the cell and already existing information stored in that cell from either a living or once living organism to clone anything.

Life begets life. Nothing has changed and there is not a single scientific expert who will say that life has been observed springing from non life.

It isn't necessary to be a learned chemist, biologist or an expert in genetics to smell horse manure.


Richard Dawkins a proponet of evolution states:

"every cell contains in its nucleus "a digitally coded database larger...than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together."

Dave Hunt adds to Dawkins statement.

Only one cell! There are trillions of cells in the human body, thousands of different kinds, working in unbelievably complex and delicately balanced relationships!"

Life is obviously more than the combining of the right elements. If that is all that it takes to produce life then we should be able tp observe life arising spontaneously from the right biological and chemical soup.

The fact that this is not the case does not seem to bother the "there is no God camp". Their faith is rooted in blind chance and an infinite amount of time.

This is a Christian forum. The only authority for faith and practice of a Christian should be the bible.

I personally look forward to the day when Christ comes and rewards those who have been true to His word and takes vengence on the men and women who spend their worthless lives trying to beguile His children and deceive them into doubting what God has declared.

These people are snakes and serpents and children of their father.

I am easily bored by foolish buffoons who bluster about as though they have some deep knowledge that believers in the God of the bible are too stupid and backward to understand.

And FYI I have never agreed to this statement " you agree that life is nothing more than a complex chemical reaction."

Those are not my words.

I believe what the bible states.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I find God's word far more credible than believing that for some unknown reason non living matter came together by chance and formed life.

Atheists have their faith and believers in God have theirs.

I know where I am going and who brought life into existence.

I know where Atheists are going and the root of their problem.

Psalms 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

There are no true atheists. Only fools who have said in their hearts that God does not exist.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I will no longer dialogue with people who insult and blaspheme my God.

The fact that atheists are allowed to compare God with Hitler and call Almighty God an evil and cruel tyrant and the source of all evil reflects poorly on the people who run this Christian forum.

Asking sincere questions about God and asking why a loving God would allow bad things to happen is understandable. Tolerating the same insolent atheists to mock and blaspheme God day after day, week after week is inexcusable.

There are no doubt new believers all over the world who come to a forum like this to learn about Christian beliefs and to develop a deeper understanding of God's word. There are many who never post or ask a question because these snakes are allowed to lurk here.

This may be acceptable to some. It is not for me.

I really don't give a bee's behind if anyone agrees with me or not.

 

[Vic C.]

Why I have neglected to to this sooner is a slipup on my part. This thread belongs in the Creation/Evolution Forum and has now been moved to it's proper place.

BB, believe me, we feel your pain. Grin and bear...and Fight the Good Fight with rest of us for now, ok? Thanks.

 

[Asimov]

Non life has never produced life based on the observable evidence. Not once. Man cannot produce a single cell by any experiment.

You're technically wrong here, because many animals have been cloned.

My question after you asked;

[quote:3587c]Can you give me observable evidence that it doesn't

was: Does it take intelligence to combine atoms of hydrogen and oxygen?

In what way is this hard to understand?

Cloning is taking life to beget life. You haven't a clue do you?[/quote:3587c]


http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html


I'd just like to point out that life has been created from non-life. Protocells which fit the definition of life have been formed. So just take a look at those.

 

[keebs]

Yes, there's a bunch of famous experiments called the Miller-Urey experiments that have shown that in pre-biotic conditions on earth, it is possible for amino acids--the building blocks of proteins--to form.

 

[Wertbag]

Asking sincere questions about God and asking why a loving God would allow bad things to happen is understandable. Tolerating the same insolent atheists to mock and blaspheme God day after day, week after week is inexcusable.

Most people on both sides of the debate attempt to stay civil, and usually just discuss the facts and information as they see it. The problem seems to be that the viewpoints are so opposite and neither side can convince the other that frustration sets in, and abuse can occur from it.
Most of us are here to understand the others points of view and to put the hard questions to each other, this will almost always cause conflict as those questions are directed at your beliefs. Just have to remember that you are unlikely to convince anyone else, so debate only for your own knowledge and if it gets personal walk away and you lose nothing.

you also have to believe that this life was created repeatedly or that it was viable and reproducing

By reproducing we aren't actually meaning sexually, simply a single cell that can divide itself (self replicating). We have a massive timeline, we have millions of lightning strikes a day (as the suggested energy source for the joining of material), so potentially trillions of locations for a single self replicating cell to form. It just doesn't sound so unbelieveable to non-believers to imagine that one event.
Why can't scientists create life in the lab? Prior to the Urey-Miller experiments people said "they can't even create amino acids". Due to the massive timeline you have to try various techniques to accelerate the experiments, we are also taking a best guess at what the earth was like back then and even reproducing lightning strikes into an experiment is a difficult task. If our technology or knowledge has only part of the answer that does not mean that we cannot eventually get the whole answer, simply that more work is required. Don't think "you can't yet, therefore you never will" as it is often shown that human knowledge catches up with what we want to achieve.

you also have to believe that this life was created repeatedly or that it was viable and reproducing the very first time! Its just ludicrous.

Think of it from the non-believers viewpoint: not only do you have to believe that an invisible being with supernatural powers created the universe by clicking his fingers, but that this being created all billions of life forms in a day by thought alone. Its just ludicrous.
Sounds too much like a computer game, click the icon watch the percentage bar load up and presto a living world appears.
So if the answer "god did it" sounds too much like alot of the ancient stories where the people had no idea about the natural world so inserted god to fill the gaps, then we start looking for more believable answers, abiogenesis is currently the best non-supernatural answer.

 

[bibleberean]

Why I have neglected to to this sooner is a slipup on my part. This thread belongs in the Creation/Evolution Forum and has now been moved to it's proper place.

BB, believe me, we feel your pain. Grin and bear...and Fight the Good Fight with rest of us for now, ok? Thanks.

Okay, Out of respect for you I will do my best. :D

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I'll start off by saying that protocells are not life - they are simply connected, circular strands of amino acids. Life is cellular (understanding that people generally don't know how to classify viruses).

Now, a few more points:

By reproducing we aren't actually meaning sexually, simply a single cell that can divide itself (self replicating). We have a massive timeline, we have millions of lightning strikes a day (as the suggested energy source for the joining of material), so potentially trillions of locations for a single self replicating cell to form.

We'll say for the sake of argument that it would be potentially one trillion lightning strikes in this amount of time. Now we can remove about half of those strikes as it can be assumed that half the earth at any given time is either too cold or too hot to support simple life. So now we're down to 500 billion. Next we can say that since land has generally made up about 30% of the earth's topography under the theory of most geologists and we can drop that number down to 150 billion.

Alright, now consider that the correct amino acids have to be together at the right time and you'll dramatically reduce that number. I'll be extremely generous and say that this limits it down to 1.5 billion. Then consider that humidity and other atmospherics must be exactly right and that'll drop it down to somewhere in the area of 300 million (although that's probably very high).

So now we consider the chances that the lightning would strike the correct chemicals with the correct voltage. Once again, I'll be ridiculously generous and say that this would have occured once in a hundred times... so now we're down to 3 million. Now consider the chances that these acids electrically charged combine in the correct pattern (sort of like the idea that a tornado hitting a parts shop could build cause them to land so that a bicycle is standing)... ayayay, being incredibly generous we'll say 300 times, or one in a million.

Now let's say that the life is viable and reproducing (and for whomever "reminded" me that we're talking asexual reproduction, all I can say is "duh"). I don't see it happening randomly in three hundred times.

And I know you disagree with the numbers. That's okay, I'm just running down the different aspects and throwing out numbers for it... but I feel okay in doing that because I was incredibly, incredibly, incredibly generous in the numbers that I provided.

Think of it from the non-believers viewpoint: not only do you have to believe that an invisible being with supernatural powers created the universe by clicking his fingers, but that this being created all billions of life forms in a day by thought alone. Its just ludicrous.

Well that's beyond the idea that life formed. If you believe in science, then you logically have to believe in a creator - the universe can't exist eternally, and can't be self-generating under the observed laws of science. So first off, your confusing theism and creationism. Second, its silly to think that the creator would have "fingers" (even if it is figurative), or that a day would have existed... a day is simply an observed rotation of the earth.

So if the answer "god did it" sounds too much like alot of the ancient stories where the people had no idea about the natural world so inserted god to fill the gaps, then we start looking for more believable answers, abiogenesis is currently the best non-supernatural answer.

Once again, I think you need to look at the Greeks if you think ancient peoples had no understanding of the natural world. And I would also suggest that the only logical answer is a creator... the laws of science require it. Second law of thermodynamics and the law of cause and effect. I can bring in a friend of mine who has been here before (Barbarian) if you like - he's a geologist who can explain in more detail why the universe is not eternal and not self-creating.

As for ambiogenesis, you may be right, it could very well be the best natural answer. But what if the best natural answer isn't the right answer?

BL

 

[keebs]

I'll start off by saying that protocells are not life - they are simply connected, circular strands of amino acids. Life is cellular (understanding that people generally don't know how to classify viruses).

That's extremely irrelevant due to the fact that protocells can evolve into cells.

And I know you disagree with the numbers. That's okay, I'm just running down the different aspects and throwing out numbers for it... but I feel okay in doing that because I was incredibly, incredibly, incredibly generous in the numbers that I provided.

I suggest you check this out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html. Also, you're "numbers" didn't take into account the multiple different ways life could have formed. You only talked about one way.

 

[Asimov]

I'll start off by saying that protocells are not life - they are simply connected, circular strands of amino acids. Life is cellular (understanding that people generally don't know how to classify viruses).

Oh ho ho...look at the big definition man.

Life is defined as:

1. Metabolism. Consists of catabolism -- breaking down molecules to get energy -- and anabolism -- making bigger molecules from smaller ones.
2. Response to stimuli
3. Growth
4. Reproduction

The protocells in these experiments do all these things,t herefore they are life.

BTW, forget the probability equations showing life to be "impossible". They are based on Garbage In and therefore got Garbage Out. For instance, the calculations (originally done by physicist Hoyle and later by non-biologist Spetner) assume that amino acids come together to make proteins "by chance". Chemistry isn't chance. They also assume that amino acids are like playing cards -- all identical shape and size -- and thus that any amino acid can fit next to any other amino acid. Instead, amino acids have side chains with very different chemical properties (water-hating, water-loving, basic, acidic) and thus there are restrictions on which amino acid can fit next to another.

For the Christians here, God did not create life by zapping it into existence by some miracle. Instead, God created life by chemistry.

 

[bibleberean]

Asking sincere questions about God and asking why a loving God would allow bad things to happen is understandable. Tolerating the same insolent atheists to mock and blaspheme God day after day, week after week is inexcusable.

Most people on both sides of the debate attempt to stay civil, and usually just discuss the facts and information as they see it. The problem seems to be that the viewpoints are so opposite and neither side can convince the other that frustration sets in, and abuse can occur from it.
Most of us are here to understand the others points of view and to put the hard questions to each other, this will almost always cause conflict as those questions are directed at your beliefs. Just have to remember that you are unlikely to convince anyone else, so debate only for your own knowledge and if it gets personal walk away and you lose nothing.

[quote:76e3d]you also have to believe that this life was created repeatedly or that it was viable and reproducing

By reproducing we aren't actually meaning sexually, simply a single cell that can divide itself (self replicating). We have a massive timeline, we have millions of lightning strikes a day (as the suggested energy source for the joining of material), so potentially trillions of locations for a single self replicating cell to form. It just doesn't sound so unbelieveable to non-believers to imagine that one event.
Why can't scientists create life in the lab? Prior to the Urey-Miller experiments people said "they can't even create amino acids". Due to the massive timeline you have to try various techniques to accelerate the experiments, we are also taking a best guess at what the earth was like back then and even reproducing lightning strikes into an experiment is a difficult task. If our technology or knowledge has only part of the answer that does not mean that we cannot eventually get the whole answer, simply that more work is required. Don't think "you can't yet, therefore you never will" as it is often shown that human knowledge catches up with what we want to achieve.

you also have to believe that this life was created repeatedly or that it was viable and reproducing the very first time! Its just ludicrous.

Think of it from the non-believers viewpoint: not only do you have to believe that an invisible being with supernatural powers created the universe by clicking his fingers, but that this being created all billions of life forms in a day by thought alone. Its just ludicrous.
Sounds too much like a computer game, click the icon watch the percentage bar load up and presto a living world appears.
So if the answer "god did it" sounds too much like alot of the ancient stories where the people had no idea about the natural world so inserted god to fill the gaps, then we start looking for more believable answers, abiogenesis is currently the best non-supernatural answer.[/quote:76e3d]

I am not in a Christian forum to look at anything from a non-believers viewpoint. Non believers should be guests in a Chrisitian forum not snakes taking it over.

They need to take their bile somewhere else.

We don't really need the viewpoints of the enemies of God in Chrisitan forum the entire world system crams their manure down our throats every day in the media and pollutes our children in the idoctrination centers known as the public school system.

One day these people will come face to face with the God they willingly rejected.

I look forward to that day. :D

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

2 Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


And then there is the "scientific viewpoint".

"The Earth was born about 5 billion years ago... Scientists are not

certain of just how it happened, but they believe that life began about

2 billion years ago in the shallow waters of some unknown seacoast. A

group of atoms came together in a very certain way. They formed a new

type of molecule -- a giant molecule, much bigger than all the other

atom groups nearby. This large molecule could do something that no other

molecule could do. It was able to take simple atoms and smaller

molecules from the sea and make a new giant molecule just like itself."

Benjamin Bova "The Giants Of The Animal World"

Some people believe the bible who was inspired by the God who created all things and knows everything.

Some people believe degenerate men who reject the Creator and believe the outlandish fables of men who are finite and don't know much.

Proverbs 17:10 A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.