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

[Parsimony]

Do you see why I can not explain it to you?

Maybe because it doesn't make sense? You are saying that something might be intelligence without fitting the definition of intelligence (a contradiction) and that conservation of energy has something to do with intelligence (and not just intelligence, but an intelligence that doesn't even fit the definition of intelligent).

No but I am sure you would love to find some label to hang on me so you can justify your own beliefs.

Giving you a label or not wouldn't change anyone's beliefs or the justification thereof.

So did the intelligence create the laws or are the laws the intelligence? Is the intelligence alive or not? What characteristics of living things does the intelligence have? Is the intelligence energy or the laws of physics (these two things are not the same)?

 

[McBell]

I was very clear with my term. Any theory of abiogensis requires spontaneous generation of organic life from inorganic materials..

That is a blatant misuse of the term spontaneous generation.

 

[George-ananda]

Interesting. So in your belief what happens to the organic elements that make up your body when you die?

They break down into their constituent elements.

 

[Sapiens]

"There is a difference."

In abiogenesis the only difference i they spread it out over billions of years to make it look like it was not spontaneus but the moment those inorganic elements turned into organic life was spontaneous generation of life.

So you either accept spontaneous generation of life or you don't?

Again, you are making a semantic argument that is inappropriate. In this case we are talking about abiogeneis, but you are referring to spontaneous generation, an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. (thanks wiki).

 

[Ouroboros]

"There is a difference."

In abiogenesis the only difference i they spread it out over billions of years to make it look like it was not spontaneus but the moment those inorganic elements turned into organic life was spontaneous generation of life.

So you either accept spontaneous generation of life or you don't?

Basically, what you're doing is false equivocation.

The term "spontaneous generation" does have a specific meaning, just like "Evolution" is a reference to the theory of evolution and "Abiogenesis" is a reference to a modern view on how life arose. Spontaneous generation was the term for a theory that was dismissed. It's basically like this. Take a jar of peanut butter. Wait 10 years. Did a worm grow from it? No? Well, that's how spontaneous generation theory suggested things worked. They don't work that way. It's more complex than that, and it's not just any matter and any condition, but specific conditions. Hence the theory "spontaneous generation" was dismissed because the way it was specified and defined could easily be disproved.

If you continue to mix these up, then this discussion is basically worthless.

 

[metis]

Why is having life supposedly created by a deity or deities that we cannot see nor find any evidence for be more logical than life evolving from non-life?

 

[Ouroboros]

One more thing, you're not asking the question in this thread because you really want to honestly discuss it. You want to force your view and opinions on anyone who disagrees with you. It's proselytizing rather than discussing. If you honestly want to know what people think and belief, then let them think and believe those things and ask questions to understand them better. Right now, you're just telling people that they're wrong because you're right. So to me, you're not asking for views and expand your understanding, but only to force your views on others.

So, I'm out of this thread. Good luck converting people to your faith.

 

[Dante Writer]

Why did you ask "do you believe" and continued with "believe" and then ask for evidence for the theory?

There's a huge difference in my mind between the things I believe and the things I know about theories. The theory of evolution is one thing.

There's no plain or unified theory of abiogenesis yet, so it can't be given to you.

What I believe about abiogenesis is what I believe, not the theory that's still not in place.

So again? You're asking for the evidence for the theory of abiogenesis? Is that it?

Also, spontaneous generation was a theory, and it was wrong, and it's not the same as abiogenesis. I hope you know this, right?

Actually, most of abiogenesis only consists of hypotheses currently, and no solidified theory has been developed.

"Also, spontaneous generation was a theory, and it was wrong, and it's not the same as abiogenesis. I hope you know this, right?"

No they are the same thing. They both claim inorganic elements can form organic life. Abiogenesis just says it take s a real long time before the poof and spontaneous reaction happens.

 

[George-ananda]

Basically, what you're doing is false equivocation.

The term "spontaneous generation" does have a specific meaning, just like "Evolution" is a reference to the theory of evolution and "Abiogenesis" is a reference to a modern view on how life arose. Spontaneous generation was the term for a theory that was dismissed. It's basically like this.

Of course he is not using the term 'spontaneous generation' as it was created to be used.

Take a jar of peanut butter. Wait 10 years. Did a worm grow from it? No?

Take a lifeless planet. Wait 1 billion years. Did a worm grow from it?

So he is getting at an interesting question though.

 

[Dante Writer]

Why is having life supposedly created by a deity or deities that we cannot see nor find any evidence for be more logical than life evolving from non-life?

Why is having life supposedly created from from non-life that we cannot see nor find any evidence for be more logical than life supposedly created by a deity or deities?

 

[Dante Writer]

One more thing, you're not asking the question in this thread because you really want to honestly discuss it. You want to force your view and opinions on anyone who disagrees with you. It's proselytizing rather than discussing. If you honestly want to know what people think and belief, then let them think and believe those things and ask questions to understand them better. Right now, you're just telling people that they're wrong because you're right. So to me, you're not asking for views and expand your understanding, but only to force your views on others.

So, I'm out of this thread. Good luck converting people to your faith.

I have no religious faith so there goes your theory!

You never did answer the question:

Where do science laws come from and why do they exist at all?

 

[Sapiens]

Of course he is not using the term 'spontaneous generation' as it was created to be used.

Take a lifeless planet. Wait 1 billion years. Did a worm grow from it?

Clearly it did.

So he is getting at an interesting question though.

No, he is hiding behind an interesting question playing games by confusing reserved and defined terms.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course he is not using the term 'spontaneous generation' as it was created to be used.

Take a lifeless planet. Wait 1 billion years. Did a worm grow from it?

Not always. It's not a given. Some of the organic matter comes from space, and is not produced on the planet, which means it's not inorganic matter that is "spontaneously generating" life, but organic. That's one of the big differences.

Put it this way, big difference is: carbon.

Spontaneous generation: don't care if there's carbon.

Abiogenesis: carbon necessary.

And other differences.

So he is getting at an interesting question though.

Of course, but he needs to be careful how he address different things because it causes confusion.

Do I believe in spontaneous generation? No. Complex life forms like flies don't grow from meat in a few days.

Do I believe in abiogenesis? Yes. Early simple life forms like virus and enzymes can form under the right conditions and with the right organic matter present, and over time evolve to a complex life form like flies.

Explain that? He asks for my belief, there it is.

 

[metis]

Why is having life supposedly created from from non-life that we cannot see nor find any evidence for be more logical than life supposedly created by a deity or deities?

Because we know that carbon compounds, which are a large part of the basis for life, can be found throughout nature, but we don't have a single piece of objective evidence that a deity or deities exist. Therefore, I tend to go more in the direction of what we know rather than go with fabrications about what we cannot in any way verify.

However, with that being said, I do not conclude that there cannot be a deity or deities that created all.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have no religious faith so there goes your theory!

You never did answer the question:

Where do science laws come from and why do they exist at all?

They're natural. I'm a pantheist, so all things exist as they are. There's no difference between a God and nature. It's all one.

Now, you answer this question, do you believe in spontaneous generation? And where did science laws come from and why do they exist at all?

 

[Midnight Rain]

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

If you walk back the Evolutionary theories to their beginning at some point you have to deal with this question.

Even if that first life in the form of bacteria came from some other planet hitched to an an asteroid or meteor you still have to get to the point of answering the question of how did that organism form.

If you do believe in spontaneous life then please tell us how that happened and evidence for that theory.

If not then please tell us what other mechanism could have produced that first life or theory for how it happened.

This is my discussion so any theory including religious and philisophical will be allowed.

That is what the evidence points to. We know that at some point in time we as living creatures can be broken down into non-living building blocks.
Also here is some things we know.
Organic material can come from inorganic material
Simple Proteins can spontaneously develop from organic materials
proteins, even simple ones, can replicate
replicating proteins is the basis of life as we know it.

 

[McBell]

Why is having life supposedly created from from non-life that we cannot see nor find any evidence for be more logical than life supposedly created by a deity or deities?

Rather difficult to take you seriously when you cannot stop with the personification....

 

[Ouroboros]

Why is having life supposedly created from from non-life that we cannot see nor find any evidence for be more logical than life supposedly created by a deity or deities?

Do you believe in God, but you're not religious?

 

[McBell]

Why is having life supposedly created from from non-life that we cannot see nor find any evidence for be more logical than life supposedly created by a deity or deities?

Because saying "Goddidit" does not answer anything.
It merely creates more points that must be addressed.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't have a problem with the terminology. I think it can, and does, happen.