• 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?

Dante Writer

Dante Writer

Active Member
Milton Platt said:
No, I believe abiogenisis is probably the correct theory, but.there is work to be done. Or is that what you were trying to refer to but could not spell it?
Click to expand...


There is no real difference in spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

In abiogenesis it just claims you have to get everything in perfect order and then maybe shock it with lighting before the spontaneous life forms.
 
Dante Writer

Dante Writer

Active Member
SkepticThinker said:
What they do is attempt to produce the natural conditions that could have existed on earth at the time and let it go from there, which doesn't mean that an intelligent designer is required.



But I'm wondering why you think something can't evolve if it's intelligently designed?
Click to expand...

"attempt to produce the natural conditions " That would be intelligent design as we do not know the conditions present.

I have never said an organism can not evolve. We see natural selection within a species to produce variations all the time.

Intelligent design does not replace some mechanism of evolution.
 
Dante Writer

Dante Writer

Active Member
leibowde84 said:
My answer is that it is far too premature to answer that question with any integrity. The best we have now are unsubstantiated hypotheses and speculation as to what "makes sense" to us individually.

In short, it is foolish to be confident in any answer beyond "we don't know yet".
Click to expand...


I can accept that and with that understanding we should not dismiss any theory that may hold some of the answer.
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Dante Writer said:
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...
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.
 
Dante Writer

Dante Writer

Active Member
Ouroboros said:
Ah. Here it is:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...sm-appears-in-lab-without-cells/#.U2EdQK1dX9N

Funny thing, it seems like it was a mistake. It wasn't planned, or something like that.
Click to expand...


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
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
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.
Click to expand...
I thought I was responding to RRex, who responded to you when you said, "No- life has never been created from inorganic materials in a lab and only very simple amino acids."

He said he had read something about it. I said I remembered something like that too. And then I found the article. Nothing more than that.

You should also be aware the New Scientist is a pay to publish magazine with no credibility as it requires no peer review.
Click to expand...
I think the research was part of this one: http://msb.embopress.org/content/10/4/725#sec-2
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Dante Writer, you are asking questions about origin of life. Could I ask you about origin of this God of yours?
 
S

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
Yes, but only for what makes sense to me and known clearly, not what claimed happened gazillion shafillion years ago. I mean like eggs hatching and seeds blooming.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I guess no one ever sees the parody of Frankenstein....

God is stirring a puddle of chemistry.....using wind, tidal currents, floods.......what ever.....

and when the opportunity arrives He hits it with a lightning bolt....and proclaims.....

It's ALIVE!.....It's ALIVE!
 
P

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Hockeycowboy said:
Hold on....you call yourself 'Christian', but you don't believe in ID of life?! A Christian is a 'follower of Christ,' following what He believed. Please read Matthew 19:4-6....Jesus believed God created humans. I mean, he was there, he should know. (Genesis 1:26)
Click to expand...
I believe He created humans too, but that He used evolution to do it.
Now, you "accept the idea of God starting the Big Bang as plausible".....but not the complexity of life that can produce more life?
Click to expand...
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.
How did you change? Sometimes, people change their views when some bad, catastrophic event occurs to them. Did something similar happen to you?
Click to expand...
Nope. It came from analysis of evidence.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Dante Writer said:
"attempt to produce the natural conditions " That would be intelligent design as we do not know the conditions present.
Click to expand...
Not yet knowing what those natural conditions were, still doesn't make it intelligent design.

Dante Writer said:
I have never said an organism can not evolve. We see natural selection within a species to produce variations all the time.

Intelligent design does not replace some mechanism of evolution.
Click to expand...
Okay so intelligent design refers to what, exactly? Just some creation event?
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Dante Writer said:
There is no real difference in spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

In abiogenesis it just claims you have to get everything in perfect order and then maybe shock it with lighting before the spontaneous life forms.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference. Spontaneous generation supposedly produces fully formed, complex organisms from inorganic matter like peanut butter or rotting meat.
The form of abiogenesis being talked about supposedly produces the basic building blocks of life from inorganic molecules via biochemical processes to produce simple life forms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top