|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Posted on: October 5, 2006 - 3:22pm
 Offline
life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
This is a good question. Any takers...
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Prove the first part of your statement.
Ditto.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Louis_Pasteur.html
That doesn't answer it. By the way, recent experiments have shown life CAN spontaneously come about certain chemical environments.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Cut and paste refutation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I was looking for a link as in the past I've seen some of the research seeking to experiement with life deriving from non life but I couldn't find a link, got anything?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Spontaneous generation is completely different and unrelated to the concept of abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation concerned fully formed, relatively complex organisms arrising from non-living objects, eg. maggots coming from decaying meat. This was clearly debunked as anyone with a lick of common sense or education now obviously knows why. Abiogenesis starts much simpler and has a bunch of steps before even simple single-celled organisms came to be, much less a complicated animal.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song
O.K. O.k. You guys are quick.. you know your stuff.
So where did the chemical properties that created life come from.
link. Simple organic compounds like amino acids, sugars, and such can form when various molecules react in water when something like lightning or UV radiation hits it. Organic molecules are really only compounds containing carbon and hydrogen in different combinations and often with other atoms like oxygen. Combine a few different simple organic molecules, give it a spark, and you can get more complex molecules. That was the type of environment where life began.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song
Boots,
Based on the questions you are asking you obviously believe in a god of the gaps. No matter what answer we give your questions, you're going to come back with another one like you did above.
No amount of evidence will convience you as you are not aproaching this from a perspective of scientific reasoning.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
And how would you know? If you're not a scientist(which you aren't), you're just an ignorant idiot that needs to realize that life cannot be created by magic.
Kevinissmart,
Who is the intended recepient of your remark?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
Judging by his myspace profile: http://www.myspace.com/hot_frozen_lemo I'm guessing towards Bryan (boots).
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
As stated in above posts, it appears you're heading in the direction of God of the Gap. Think carefully of the argument you are trying to present here -- are you heading for the argument of a first cause?
The original post was about life arising from non-life. As stated above, scientists can recreate in labs the conditions of life and in turn the precursors for life. Life can arise when you have an environment containing all of the right conditions; the correct gravity range, the correct external energy input and heat range from the planets sun, the correct magnetic shielding from the planets core, and the correct composition of materials on the planet such as water, carbon, oxygen, and so on.
With a universe containing billions of galaxies and each of those containing billions of solar systems and each of those yet with many planets it stands to reason that there are billions of planets with the right conditions. Compound this with billions of years and it seems ridiculous to expect anything other than life to crop up many times over throughout the universe.
Now, with your question "so where did the chemical properties that create life come from" the obvious answer is the universe and the non-contradicting laws of physics that govern it. I sense that your unstated argument is "the universe must have come from somewhere, thus it have must come from God"
If this is your intent, it is important to note that the God conclusion is fruitless in this case. If you are arguing that everything -- the universe -- must have a first cause, this same principal and requirement must also be applied to the creator of the universe and you are thus stuck with the same problem. Who created God? If your answer is God has always been and does not require a first cause, you are simply creating and fabricating one unknown to explain another unknown. Using Occam’s razor you are better off simply stating the universe has always been and does not require a first cause, instead of adding undue complexity by adding an unknown and unproven fabrication of the mind, aka God.
At least with this conclusion you are actually making a statement about something we know and have plenty of evidence exists -- in this case, the universe.
now that we have seen life, i understand why such a statement would be made, but what about there being a universe would indicate life should arise at all? anthropic principle?
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
averyv,
I don't see any innate reason requiring life to develop, but I would expect it to occur in one shape or form given a complex and large enough system such as the universe we live in. When it comes down to it, life is simply a domino effect of self replication and persistence.
If you have a complex and large enough system, with enough time, its possible that other kinds of chain reactions could occur that would be nothing like the cellular biology we know today. Change the principles of physics a bit, I hypothesize a different kind of life than the currently known cellular life could -- and given a large enough universe and enough time -- emerge; another form of self replicating and adapting domino effect other than our current carbon based cellular based life. We just happen to be in a universe with physical laws that this kind of life was perfectly suited to happen here, on this particular planet with these particular conditions.
It’s the same thing as asking; what’s the probability of life happening on earth as it is. Given the scale, complexity and duration it was bound to happen and our solar system happens to be the one it happened in and no matter which one of the billions of placed it could happen, its bound to happen, and each possible place we would be sitting with the same sense of wonder "why here?" even though the probability was guaranteed to happen somewhere due to the size and scope. It’s the same with life happening in the way it has as we know it; given the complexity, size, and scope of the universe it was bound somewhere a self replicating system would emerge in some fashion, and our cellular based life is it.
If forces of gravity and heat were different, on the level of chemistry its feasible that similar but different life would emerge based on silicon instead of carbon; which in theory that form of life could form in our current understanding of the universe on the outer magnetic shell of certain types of collapsed stars. Its the same kind of scenario as before; no matter how life formed, be it carbon based on earth or silicon based on the outer magnetic shell of a semi-collapsed star, or some other system of replication and adaptation we have not even imagined yet, we would still have the same observation of the mind-blowing probability of it happening this way and thinking it seemed almost uncanny.
Life is like a giant lottery, and we are the lucky winners with just the right numbers. Personally, I think that’s really amazing.
This is my last question, on this topic, I promise that I will leave my idiocy to myself concerning the whole God issue.
Is it scientificaly possible to PROVE that something doesnt exist?
No. That's why science always, always, always demands that you prove something exists.
It's possible to show how some things simply can't exist, but I can't think of an example where science is needed to show it.
For example, does a square circle exist? No.
Does an all loving god who created a system in which people are tortured eternally exist? No.
How about a married bachelor? No.
There are certain logical impossibilities, contradictions, but no scientific test is needed to prove them, nor do I think a test could be devised.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Don't keep it to yourself; leave it behind altogether.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
There's also the use of inductive arguments which can for all practical purposes, but not absolute 100%, prove a certain hypothesis. You have a hypothesis that something exists on earth or in the detectable universe, but over the history of human life on earth none of the billions of people searching for it have ever found a single piece of evidence for it. You can reasonably conclude that the object in question does not exist. And the more unlikely and ridiculous the claim you make, like there's a herd of badgers on the moon or psychics can really see the future or there's a magical deity watching over us or the Lions and Raiders will meet in the Super Bowl this season, the more evidence you should demand for it because nothing we've ever seen or experienced in this universe honestly suggests any of those things are true. Without some evidence or even a coherent definition of what you're looking for, there's just no point in even considering it.
Side note: The football comment reminded me of something a comic on the Opie & Anthony show said during an NFL conversation.
Edit: Oh and Boots, don't stop asking questions. You'll never learn anything if you do.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!
- Eric Idle, from The Galaxy Song
Where did god come from?
Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
there are also cases when one might assume such a position, that they would be shown incorrect in time. is there such a thing as a triangle that consists of 270 degrees?
http://mathematicsontribe.tribe.net/thread/047ea5ed-9d76-4eea-b000-11448a905412
==============
If there's no bending, and we draw a triangle in our surface and measure all the angles, we get 180 degrees. Now imagine that the surface is curved like a sphere. When we draw a triangle with the straighest possible lines, which are geodesics on the sphere (great circles), the triangles we'll get all have angles that sum to more than 180 degrees. Imagine, for example, on the surface of the earth, a triangle from the north pole to the equator along the prime meridian, then a 90-degree turn right to the 90-degee line (near the Galapagos Islands) where we make a 90 degree turn north, and so on to the pole, where we meet the initial line of the triangle at 90 degress. Our triangle has 90+90+90 = 270 degrees.
===============
my point in this is that when you are dealing in fewer dimensions than a perspective, many times the conclusions that are come to based on senses and sense of the placement of things from that perspective are fine, given experimentation and consideration and imagination of possibilities. when dealing in higher dimensions, very long or very short distances, and 'absolute reality' (all of which, imo, exist in our universe), our typical sense of 'what is' is not terribly accurate.
i imagine many independent observers would disagree quite strongly with that claim. i personally wonder why only the detectable universe is to be considered, what level of detection is to be trusted, and where experience factors into detection.
"In depriving myself of the acorns... what have we learned? Nothing! Not one of us has learned!
"Which isn't my point, but very well could have been."
— Ashley Raymond, Olympia, 1989
I think at this point, I can learn more just trying to follow your guys' dialouge. I .... well carry on.
This guy in 3 out of four of his posts has insulted the people he was responding to, only one was he retorting. Now I am clearly a theist. That obviously makes me igonrant by your views. Saying some one is ignorant is one thing. Insulting them by saying they are an idiot is another. I dont think that this sort of response is going to help your cause. Why, if you are so smart, are you so bitter?
Since life does exist, it is obvious that life came from nonlife unless you want to try to redefine life to include the universe itself.
Was there life before the big bang? Probably, since the word 'before' includes all of time infinitely into the past and in an infinite period it is guaranteed that life existed before the big bang. But I am basically referring to the period during or just before the big bang when the universe was theoretically compressed in a pin-point and time was in an entirely different scale of units during which life, most likely did not exist. Sometime between or just before the bigbang life formed from nonlife.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.