• 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!

According to Some Folks, New Theory in Physics has "Creationists Terrified".

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Interesting, I don't see a threat to creationism.....at least no more of a threat than anything else.

The threat is to make science boring.

It is obvious fact that there must be a representation of a fully formed adult organism in the dna of any organism, which representation guides the development of the organism to a coherent whole adult organism.

The signal from dna has already been detected, now one "only" needs to translate that signal to a 3d computersimulation environment. Then people would see inside the dna world, instead of just looking at the dna code.

That would be nice and familiar, and not boring.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The basic idea behind the theory seems to be that, under the right conditions, life will inevitably arise from non-living matter.

What do you make of this?

But what is life? Is it same as the replicating molecules?
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
It's interesting, but it needs to be developed a little more and gain some evidence from actual tests. I seriously doubt just any combination of chemicals can become a living thing, regardless of energy input or a heat bath of whatever.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
It's interesting, but it needs to be developed a little more and gain some evidence from actual tests. I seriously doubt just any combination of chemicals can become a living thing, regardless of energy input or a heat bath of whatever.
A combination of chemicals that were your mom and dad gave life to you. :)
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Animate matter (life) did not arise from inanimate matter. Matter is and always will be animated in some way. Some forms of matter are more animated than others. The most highly animated forms we call life. Given enough time and under the right conditions, matter can change from a lesser animated state to a highly animated, highly interactive state.
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
The problem I see is that people mistakenly assume that "life" is a separate entity apart from matter. That which we call life in a way doesn't really exist at all. It is really just a label we give to certain forms of matter which display certain characteristics. That which we call life is nothing more than highly interactive forms of matter.
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Unsubstantiated. It very well may have.
Unsubstantiated. It very well may have.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together." Max Planck

So you see it is very obvious that matter is highly animated. It is always interacting and always changing. The way I see it, that same force that brings the atom into vibration is the very same force that animates life itself. The potential for highly animated forms of matter (life) was always there to begin with. All that was needed was enough time and the right conditons for that already animated matter to change form and become even more animated and more interactive. As an animist, to me there is no such thing as "inanimate". Everything, all matter is animated by a force. The same force which which brings the particle of the atom to vibration.
 
Last edited:

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
A combination of chemicals that were your mom and dad gave life to you. :)
Rather specific batches of chemicals at that.
So you see it is very obvious that matter is highly animated. It is always interacting and always changing. The way I see it, that same force that brings the atom into vibration is the very same force that animates life itself. The potential for highly animated forms of matter (life) was always there to begin with. All that was needed was enough time and the right conditons for that already animated matter to change form and become even more animated and more interactive. As an animist, to me there is no such thing as "inanimate". Everything, all matter is animated by a force. The same force which which brings the particle of the atom to vibration.
Perhaps "animate" and "inanimate" should be replaced here. How about...matter that does not self-replicate, grow and evolve becoming matter that can self-replicate, grow and evolve?
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Rather specific batches of chemicals at that.
Specific, kind'a. There are many different combinations of chemical compositions in bacteria, virus, and so on. And what elements or chemicals exist in our bodies that are not natural? All of them are.

Perhaps "animate" and "inanimate" should be replaced here. How about...matter that does not self-replicate, grow and evolve becoming matter that can self-replicate, grow and evolve?
Maybe, but it's not totally accurate. :)

Matter doesn't self-replicate, not even in cells. At least not in the sense of elementary particles. They are just what they are. Produced by stars and such.

What's replicating is molecules and systems of molecules. And crystals replicate too, and lipids, and in a sense stars too... So, the distinction between life and non-life, animate and inanimate, and so on is ultimately without a clear distinction. There's no clear-cut line between the two.

The thing is, it's the system of matter that replicates. The composition, and it replicates through physics, chemistry, and natural properties innate in the matter. The bits in a computer with transistors become Windows, Linux, or OS X. The transistors are inanimate, while Windows quite seems to have its own opinions at times.

Basically, the animate always consist of the inanimate. The inanimate becomes animate through symbiosis and synergy. Life is emergent from the matter. ;)

Sorry, I'm keeping on adding to this post :D

It's like cars can become traffic, which becomes rush hour, which becomes "I'm late to work!" A car isn't traffic, but many cars on a freeway is.
 
Last edited:

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Specific, kind'a. There are many different combinations of chemical compositions in bacteria, virus, and so on. And what elements or chemicals exist in our bodies that are not natural? All of them are.
My point is that there is currently no evidence that you can take just any combination of chemicals and expect them to turn into a living cell just because you add energy and take away heat. Mix bromine with carbon tetrachloride and I doubt you'll ever get anything alive out of that, no matter how long you wait.
Maybe, but it's not totally accurate. :)

Matter doesn't self-replicate, not even in cells. At least not in the sense of elementary particles. They are just what they are. Produced by stars and such.

What's replicating is molecules and systems of molecules. And crystals replicate too, and lipids, and in a sense stars too... So, the distinction between life and non-life, animate and inanimate, and so on is ultimately without a clear distinction. There's no clear-cut line between the two.
If you want to get technical about it, but you know what I meant.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
My point is that there is currently no evidence that you can take just any combination of chemicals and expect them to turn into a living cell just because you add energy and take away heat.
Oh. I didn't get what you were saying at first. The "any" didn't get into my brain. :D

Yes, you're right. You can't just take any kind of composition and expect it to behave that way. You're right. It has to be a particular mix, not just whatever.

I don't think that's what this new theory (not sure if that's the right term for it without proper testing, etc) suggests though.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together." Max Planck

So you see it is very obvious that matter is highly animated. It is always interacting and always changing. The way I see it, that same force that brings the atom into vibration is the very same force that animates life itself. The potential for highly animated forms of matter (life) was always there to begin with. All that was needed was enough time and the right conditons for that already animated matter to change form and become even more animated and more interactive. As an animist, to me there is no such thing as "inanimate". Everything, all matter is animated by a force. The same force which which brings the particle of the atom to vibration.


I see what your saying now.

Or I see what you did there! :D
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Rather specific batches of chemicals at that.

Perhaps "animate" and "inanimate" should be replaced here. How about...matter that does not self-replicate, grow and evolve becoming matter that can self-replicate, grow and evolve?

I don't really see the necessity for the distinction since all it indicates is a different form of change. We know that matter changes form. It is active and dynamic, not static or unchanging. Over periods of time and under the right conditions that change may involve self-replication and evolution which at it's most basic is another form of gradual change/adaptation over long periods of time. Matter changing form. That's why I say "life" doesn't really exist the way we know it. It is just matter changing form, becoming more animated.
 
Last edited:

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Specific, kind'a. There are many different combinations of chemical compositions in bacteria, virus, and so on. And what elements or chemicals exist in our bodies that are not natural? All of them are.


Maybe, but it's not totally accurate. :)

Matter doesn't self-replicate, not even in cells. At least not in the sense of elementary particles. They are just what they are. Produced by stars and such.

What's replicating is molecules and systems of molecules. And crystals replicate too, and lipids, and in a sense stars too... So, the distinction between life and non-life, animate and inanimate, and so on is ultimately without a clear distinction. There's no clear-cut line between the two.

The thing is, it's the system of matter that replicates. The composition, and it replicates through physics, chemistry, and natural properties innate in the matter. The bits in a computer with transistors become Windows, Linux, or OS X. The transistors are inanimate, while Windows quite seems to have its own opinions at times.

Basically, the animate always consist of the inanimate. The inanimate becomes animate through symbiosis and synergy. Life is emergent from the matter. ;)

Sorry, I'm keeping on adding to this post :D

It's like cars can become traffic, which becomes rush hour, which becomes "I'm late to work!" A car isn't traffic, but many cars on a freeway is.

I agree with you and it's all the same matter changing form. The same fundamental forces drive the interactions of all matter whether we call it animate or inanimate. The same thing that fuels our "life" is the same thing that fuels the stars. We are simply arranged differently, but there is no "new" emergent force or energy that is created when life emerges. It is all the same "star stuff" rearranged.
 

Vishvavajra

Active Member
Interesting, I don't see a threat to creationism.....at least no more of a threat than anything else.
Yeah, creationists will carry on ignoring it just like they do everything else. If they were earnest about debating things within a scientific context, then it might take the wind out of one of their favorite arguments, but I have yet to meet a creationist who was sincere in representing the scientific side of things.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yeah, creationists will carry on ignoring it just like they do everything else. If they were earnest about debating things within a scientific context, then it might take the wind out of one of their favorite arguments, but I have yet to meet a creationist who was sincere in representing the scientific side of things.
I've found some to be quite sincere, but they have a distorted (IMO) grasp of science.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I've found some to be quite sincere, but they have a distorted (IMO) grasp of science.
I would agree that most creationists are sincere, but the creationist educators who teach creation science are not, nor are the bodies who fund them - like the DI. I fully understand that many people do not know any better, but a science teacher, or the people defining the science curriculum have no excuse for scientific ignorance.
 
Top