• 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!

Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Ouroboros said:
Miller-Urey actually had a contamination. They re-did the experiment and failed. But then, some 10-15 years ago, there was a team that created the experiment again, and no contamination, this time it worked.

We also know that there are more amino acids in space than here on Earth. Only some 20 are used here on Earth, if I remember right, but I think they identified about 70 in space through spectrometry and even from meteorites, if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...
Apparently also, another team of researchers when back over the results of some of Miller's experiments (apparently he performed many more than we are aware of) and found that he had produced more amino acids than originally thought.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Dante Writer said:
Now go read that article. They did not create life. They claim they observed a chemical reaction.

Yes chemical reactions occur in inorganic elements. Not evidence of life which is more than a single chemical reaction.

You should also be aware the New Scientist is a pay to publish magazine with no credibility as it requires no peer review.

"Sold in retail outlets and on subscription, the magazine covers current developments, news, reviews and commentary on science and technology. It also prints speculative articles, ranging from the technical to the philosophical. There is a readers' letters section which discusses recent articles, and discussions also take place on the website.

Readers contribute observations on examples of pseudoscience to Feedback, and questions and answers on scientific and technical topics to Last Word; extracts from the latter have been compiled into several books."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist
Click to expand...
If that much is true, why is it so difficult to accept the possibility of life forming from inorganic elements? Our bodies operate on chemical reactions.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Dante Writer said:
I have presented that in other discussion you are welcome to read.

This topic was



No- life has never been created from inorganic materials in a lab and only very simple amino acids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment
Click to expand...

I did not ask for lack of evidence of life having being created in a lab from non life. I know there is none. Yet.

I asked for evidence of the alternative theory, if you have any.

Ciao

- viole
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
SkepticThinker said:
Several posters have given you his own words and so have I. More times than I can count.
Why do you insist on being dishonest about this quote mine stuff?
Click to expand...

I've heard lots of varying interpretations of Dawkins' meaning from internet posters, so I'm not sure which you refer to. But if you watch that link you'll see I am directly referencing the original, spoken words, in context, of Dawkins himself.....

any substantive response is always welcome, I assume everyone here is honest, at the very least it makes for a more interesting discussion than resorting to ad hominem attacks on integrity
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Guy Threepwood said:
I've heard lots of varying interpretations of Dawkins' meaning from internet posters, so I'm not sure which you refer to. But if you watch that link you'll see I am directly referencing the original, spoken words, in context, of Dawkins himself.....

any substantive response is always welcome, I assume everyone here is honest, at the very least it makes for a more interesting discussion than resorting to ad hominem attacks on integrity
Click to expand...
The substantive response you are looking for has been provided numerous times. You've seen direct quotes from Dawkins talking about his interview with Ben Stein. Several times. Hence the reference to dishonesty.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Guy Threepwood said:
any substantive response is always welcome, I assume everyone here is honest, at the very least it makes for a more interesting discussion than resorting to ad hominem attacks on integrity
Click to expand...
If you do not want your dishonesty being pointed out, stop being dishonest.
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
SkepticThinker said:
If that much is true, why is it so difficult to accept the possibility of life forming from inorganic elements? Our bodies operate on chemical reactions.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The magic is that the physical/chemical world is the foundation for the biological world. All things are of natural matter. There's no pixie dust in the cells. At least we haven't found it yet. Or perhaps each cell contains a "spirit" and that's why they're alive? We have billions of spirits in us then. Should we call them thetans and convert to Scientology now? LOL!

Hover Dam! I just realized something about the line of questions in these threads...
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Ouroboros said:
Exactly. The magic is that the physical/chemical world is the foundation for the biological world. All things are of natural matter.
Click to expand...
Right! How cool is that?

Ouroboros said:
There's no pixie dust in the cells. At least we haven't found it yet. Or perhaps each cell contains a "spirit" and that's why they're alive? We have billions of spirits in us then. Should we call them thetans and convert to Scientology now? LOL!
Click to expand...
Somebody get Tom Cruise on the phone! :D

Ouroboros said:
Hover Dam! I just realized something about the line of questions in these threads...
Click to expand...

Uh oh.
 
allfoak

allfoak

Alchemist
Ouroboros said:
Hover Dam! I just realized something about the line of questions in these threads...
Click to expand...

I'm on the edge of my seat here....


7ccd70d48e79106a85201625441769c5.jpg
 
Hockeycowboy

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Parsimony said:
I believe He created humans too, but that He used evolution to do it.

I think it's possible that he created the first living organism and evolution took it from there, but I also think it's possible that the laws which He created were sufficient to bring about abiogenesis on their own. In either case, you could still argue that God brought about life.

Nope. It came from analysis of evidence.
Click to expand...

So, you're not going to accept what Jesus said, at Matthew 19:4-6? Well, that's your prerogative....but it sort of negates being a follower of Christ, not accepting what He taught.

Keep in mind: "analysis of the evidence," the "integrated complexity" as he called it, led Professor Antony Flew away from his long-held belief in atheism. I guess this really doesn't apply, in trying to help you. You accept belief in a Creator.
To be a follower of Christ, we have to take it further: in Matthew 19:4-6, where Jesus was talking with the Pharisees, he asked them, "Did you not read....?" He was referring to the Genesis account of creation, i.e., where the first two humans - "male and female" - were created directly by God. And mtDNA evidence supports this event; it leads to a common ancestor for every human living! Interestingly and appropriately, scientists refer to her as 'Mitochondrial Eve'.

Jesus' discussion confirms, it's not a metaphorical account!

Take care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top