[_ Old Earth _] The first living animal

[KnarfKS]

I also will make note that no scientist has produced living matter from nonliving matter though many have tried. It has also never occured in recorded history.

They have not made living matter. This is true, but they have formed Organic compounds from carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. Including the building blocks of DNA, but there was absolutely no order to it, except they made some of the codons.

I just think "Living matter" is a really, really bad term that is confusing a few people. Organic is a much better term in this case.


BTW, have you been here before kinggambits? This sounds extremely familiar.

 

[CrazyTech]

What exactly is the difference between nonliving matter and living matter.

In very general laymen's terms living matter can reproduce, grow, and move about and non-living matter cannot do this.

If I eat a steak (nonliving, even though I like my steak rare sometimes), it is converted to living matter once absorbed by my body.

Care to explain?

 

[CrazyTech]

There's no doubt living matter comes from living matter (or call it whatever you wish). However, I'm getting to the point where I am very quickly becoming confused about some things here after the last post.

The point I'm trying to get at is that no living thing has ever been created either in the laboratory or in nature (that we have observed) from nonliving material. There's no modern day Frankenstein to be found.

So in order for evolution to work, something would have to change along the way and IMHO this suggests the idea of a Creator regardless of what you believe.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

What exactly is the difference between nonliving matter and living matter.

In very general laymen's terms living matter can reproduce, grow, and move about and non-living matter cannot do this.

[quote:07f93]
If I eat a steak (nonliving, even though I like my steak rare sometimes), it is converted to living matter once absorbed by my body.

Care to explain?[/quote:07f93]


It seems to me that some laymen believe that the matter that composes their bodies is somehow different - perhaps endowed with special properties - from matter that composes a block of limestone.

A piece of steak is made mostly of proteins, and certainly is not alive. If I eat the steak my stomach acids break the proteins down to their constituent amino acids and some of those will be absorbed by my body and incorperated into my tissues.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

There's no doubt living matter comes from living matter (or call it whatever you wish). However, I'm getting to the point where I am very quickly becoming confused about some things here after the last post.

The point I'm trying to get at is that no living thing has ever been created either in the laboratory or in nature (that we have observed) from nonliving material. There's no modern day Frankenstein to be found.

So in order for evolution to work, something would have to change along the way and IMHO this suggests the idea of a Creator regardless of what you believe.

Do yo think that the phosphorous, chlorine, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur or iron atoms in your body are some how different then those in inantimate objects around you?


Is DNA "living matter". We have machines called PCRs which replicate chains of DNA using the exact same processes that occur inside your cells. Is the DNA being replicated in a PCR's reaction chamber different the the DNA being replicated in the cells lining the inside of your stomach?

Many biochemical processes can be performed in the lab. Basically, in a test tube. For instance the ADP-ATP transfer (the basic energy source for our bodies) happens in a test tube in the same way as in our cells at the molecular level.

Where exactly is the distinction between living matter and non living matter?

Is a virus living or non living? A virus only fufills some of the requirements to be defined as "alive". They straddle the boundry between what is living and non living.

Even simple fire has some of the requirements of "life" (simple metabolism, ablility to grow and react to the environment). Of course no one claims that fire is alive. But you do see that there is no magic boundry between life and non life.

At the molecular level are you alive, or is life the culmination of a number of chemical interactions?

 

[Heidi]

There's no doubt living matter comes from living matter (or call it whatever you wish). However, I'm getting to the point where I am very quickly becoming confused about some things here after the last post.

The point I'm trying to get at is that no living thing has ever been created either in the laboratory or in nature (that we have observed) from nonliving material. There's no modern day Frankenstein to be found.

So in order for evolution to work, something would have to change along the way and IMHO this suggests the idea of a Creator regardless of what you believe.

no, it suggests random changes in dna from time to time :angel: :angel: :angel:

"For the wisdom of the world is foolisheness in God's sight."

 

[Guest]

"For the wisdom of the world is foolisheness in God's sight."

maybe god looks foolish in light of the worlds wisdom

You know, two stupids don't make a smart.

a smart and a stupid make a smart though

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Here is some more information about the blurry boundry between life and non life to demonstrate that there is no clear distinction between "living matter" and non "living matter".

Confirmation that virus are regarded as structures that straddle the boundry between life and non life.

Froman articlethat discusses the possiblitiy that virus may actually be left overs from the precursers to life ( http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/ )

Less an organism than a jumbled collection of biochemical shards, the virus eventually yielded Wendell M. Stanley, the leader of the research team that exposed it, a Nobel Prize in chemistry rather than biology. The discovery also set off an intense scientific and philosophical debate that still rages: What exactly is a virus? Can it properly be described as alive? " 'Life' and 'living' are words that the scientist has borrowed from the plain man," the British virologist Norman Pirie wrote at the time. "Now, however, systems are being discovered and studied which are neither obviously living nor obviously dead, and it is necessary to define these words or else give up using them and coin others."

 

[Heidi]

"For the wisdom of the world is foolisheness in God's sight."

maybe god looks foolish in light of the worlds wisdom

You know, two stupids don't make a smart.

a smart and a stupid make a smart though

And who decides who is smart? :o Since man invariably overlooks the parts in himself that aren't smart, then man is not qualified to judge himself. He is always biased.

And the converse is true as wll. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from God for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned." But since man did not create the uiniverse and is not omniscient, then he is not credible enough to know better than God does even though he of course, thinks he is, because again, he is biased and boastful."

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

To say that life cannot come from nonlife is absurd.
The matter that makes up our bodies is not alive.
It is possible to manufacture amino acids from their constituant elements (nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen). Injest these amino acids and they will quickly be incorporated into your living tissues (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins).

There is no distinction between nonliving matter and living matter. From the persepective of a carbon atom, it makes no difference if it exists in the diamond on your finger or in the skin of that finger.

 

[Heidi]

To say that life cannot come from nonlife is absurd.
The matter that makes up our bodies is not alive.
It is possible to manufacture amino acids from their constituant elements (nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen). Injest these amino acids and they will quickly be incorporated into your living tissues (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins).

There is no distinction between nonliving matter and living matter. From the persepective of a carbon atom, it makes no difference if it exists in the diamond on your finger or in the skin of that finger.

So if you say that life can't come from non-life, are you saying that life always existed? Because life exists and it had to come from somewhere. Either way, you're saying that God exists because God is and always was. But if life came from non-life, then only God can do that. So either way, you claim that God exists.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

To say that life cannot come from nonlife is absurd.
The matter that makes up our bodies is not alive.
It is possible to manufacture amino acids from their constituant elements (nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen). Injest these amino acids and they will quickly be incorporated into your living tissues (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins).

There is no distinction between nonliving matter and living matter. From the persepective of a carbon atom, it makes no difference if it exists in the diamond on your finger or in the skin of that finger.

So if you say that life can't come from non-life, are you saying that life always existed? Because life exists and it had to come from somewhere. Either way, you're saying that God exists because God is and always was. But if life came from non-life, then only God can do that. So either way, you claim that God exists.

What LC is saying is that life/nonlife dichotomy is a false one. Life is defined by the ability to reproduce and the various activities that organisms partake in toward the cause of reproduction. And he didn't say life couldn't come from nonlife, he said in fact that life must come from nonlife. God isn't needed for it Heidi.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

What LC is saying is that life/nonlife dichotomy is a false one. Life is defined by the ability to reproduce and the various activities that organisms partake in toward the cause of reproduction. And he didn't say life couldn't come from nonlife, he said in fact that life must come from nonlife. God isn't needed for it Heidi.

Of course there's not a shred of evidence or one single observation of life

coming from non-life.

Let's keep it scientific.

All life comes from life, as far as we know scientifically.

Peace

 

[Solo]

To say that life cannot come from nonlife is absurd.
The matter that makes up our bodies is not alive.
It is possible to manufacture amino acids from their constituant elements (nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen). Injest these amino acids and they will quickly be incorporated into your living tissues (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins).

There is no distinction between nonliving matter and living matter. From the persepective of a carbon atom, it makes no difference if it exists in the diamond on your finger or in the skin of that finger.

So if you say that life can't come from non-life, are you saying that life always existed? Because life exists and it had to come from somewhere. Either way, you're saying that God exists because God is and always was. But if life came from non-life, then only God can do that. So either way, you claim that God exists.

What LC is saying is that life/nonlife dichotomy is a false one. Life is defined by the ability to reproduce and the various activities that organisms partake in toward the cause of reproduction. And he didn't say life couldn't come from nonlife, he said in fact that life must come from nonlife. God isn't needed for it Heidi.

You are expressing personally biased non-scientific opinion. That is not what you normally preach. whassup?! :o

Do other evolutionists express personally biased non-scientific opinions on matters relating to evolution? In case you are fearful of answering in the affirmative, I will do it for you. YES.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

So if you say that life can't come from non-life, are you saying that life always existed?

My whole point is that the distinction between living and non living is first of all not necessarly clear cut, and secondly does not happen at the atomic or molecular level.

Because life exists and it had to come from somewhere.

Life a physical process in a physical universe. Life comes from the interaction of matter and energy in the same way as fire does. It's souce is woven into the fabric of reality.

Either way, you're saying that God exists because God is and always was.

I don't believe I said anything like that Heidi.

But if life came from non-life, then only God can do that. So either way, you claim that God exists.

I agree that God exists. The processes we know as life are as natural (in that they obey the laws of nature) just as much as any other part of the physical universe.


Sometimes I get the impression that YEC's believe that life is so metaphysical and mystical that it somehow violates the laws of physics and chemistry - and therefore needs an outside miracle to even exist. As thoug life was somehow "un-natural".

I think that a lot of other thiestic evolutionists would agree with me that the existance of life is still possible because of God, however it is that the univers is structured in such a way as to allow life to come into being naturally.

 

[Heidi]

Actually, it's the exact opposite. When scientists agree with God, they will always be right. But when they disagree with Him, they will always be wrong. It's that simple. ;-)

 

[ArtGuy]

Actually, it's the exact opposite. When scientists agree with God, they will always be right. But when they disagree with Him, they will always be wrong. It's that simple. ;-)

Person A says, "God clearly says that X." He then explains how the Bible makes this apparent. Person B says, "No, what God actually says is Y." He then explains how God makes this apparent. Neither claim is superficially dismissible, and each argument holds merit, although the two claims are, themselves, very different.

How do you determine which person is correct? They both assert that God agrees with them, and they both provide evidence. They both believe that the Word of God as communicated via the Bible supports their respective sides.

Do you agree that, in this case, dismissing one side with "You're disagreeing with God, so you're wrong," is unhelpful? If so, what do you do? Is it irrational, in this case, to look at the world around you and try to find evidence in God's own creation to support one side or the other? Or is trying to approach the situation analytically a tool of the Devil?

Concisely put, your statement is true but complete unhelpful. It doesn't help us determine what God is actually saying. It simply asserts that whatever he's saying, he's right, which is not a point that theistic evolutionists are willing to dispute.

 

[Heidi]

Actually, it's the exact opposite. When scientists agree with God, they will always be right. But when they disagree with Him, they will always be wrong. It's that simple. ;-)

Person A says, "God clearly says that X." He then explains how the Bible makes this apparent. Person B says, "No, what God actually says is Y." He then explains how God makes this apparent. Neither claim is superficially dismissible, and each argument holds merit, although the two claims are, themselves, very different.

How do you determine which person is correct? They both assert that God agrees with them, and they both provide evidence. They both believe that the Word of God as communicated via the Bible supports their respective sides.

Do you agree that, in this case, dismissing one side with "You're disagreeing with God, so you're wrong," is unhelpful? If so, what do you do? Is it irrational, in this case, to look at the world around you and try to find evidence in God's own creation to support one side or the other? Or is trying to approach the situation analytically a tool of the Devil?

Concisely put, your statement is true but complete unhelpful. It doesn't help us determine what God is actually saying. It simply asserts that whatever he's saying, he's right, which is not a point that theistic evolutionists are willing to dispute.

Because again, you are looking to fallible human beings for answers instead of the Word which comes from God himself. Putting your faith in fallioble human beings only leads you to fallibility, my friend. Only God knows the truth so if you want the infallible truth, you can start by reading God's Word & believing it.

 

[reznwerks]

god

To say that life cannot come from nonlife is absurd.
The matter that makes up our bodies is not alive.
It is possible to manufacture amino acids from their constituant elements (nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen). Injest these amino acids and they will quickly be incorporated into your living tissues (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins).

There is no distinction between nonliving matter and living matter. From the persepective of a carbon atom, it makes no difference if it exists in the diamond on your finger or in the skin of that finger.

So if you say that life can't come from non-life, are you saying that life always existed? Because life exists and it had to come from somewhere. Either way, you're saying that God exists because God is and always was. But if life came from non-life, then only God can do that. So either way, you claim that God exists.

Why is it that you have no problem accepting a God that always existed yet no evidence of his existance can be found yet you can't accept the possibility that life always existed even though we know that we exist?

 

[Khristeeanos]

Re: god

Why is it that you have no problem accepting a God that always existed yet no evidence of his existance can be found yet you can't accept the possibility that life always existed even though we know that we exist?

What do you mean no evidence for God?

Read the Bible, it is proof of God's existance and great love and compassion for humanity.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus.

It is like me telling you that your father doesn't exist. :evil: