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

[Altfish]

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.

I believe life started from the 'primordial soup' or similar.

How do you think it happened?

 

[metis]

I believe life started from the 'primordial soup' or similar.

I drank it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You said this: "World population studies do not support the current hypothesis that the origin of 'modern' humans began 100,000 years ago, not even 20,000 years; but, rather, are more in line with the Biblical timeline given." So you disagree with mainstream science about the age of modern humans, and claim Biblical timelines are correct instead. What Biblical timeline are you referring to? How old does the Bible say modern humans are, in your opinion?

"How old does the Bible say modern humans are, in your opinion?"

Well, if you start with a 'pivotal date', in other words, one that both the Bible and secular historians agree on, you can begin with the date of 539 BCE, the year that many say was when Cyrus the Great began ruling. (I say "many", because I think a few dispute it.) From that point on back, the Bible can give you the years (which include the 'begats', the reigns of kings, etc) all the way back to Adam, which is a little beyond 4,000 BCE.

 

[metis]

"How old does the Bible say modern humans are, in your opinion?"

Well, if you start with a 'pivotal date', in other words, one that both the Bible and secular historians agree on, you can begin with the date of 539 BCE, the year that many say was when Cyrus the Great began ruling. (I say "many", because I think a few dispute it.) From that point on back, the Bible can give you the years (which include the 'begats', the reigns of kings, etc) all the way back to Adam, which is a little beyond 4,000 BCE.

There are excavations of neolithic towns that go back several thousand years prior to that.

Homo sapiens, according to both the fossil record and genome testing, goes back to roughly 200,000 years ago, which is slightly older than I am.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There are excavations of neolithic towns that go back several thousand years prior to that.

Homo sapiens, according to both the fossil record and genome testing, goes back to roughly 200,000 years ago, which is slightly older than I am.

Ok....you're Jewish, but you don't accept the Pentateuch? Interesting.

 

[leibowde84]

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

If a theory isn't supported by external evidence, what justification is there in accepting it, whether of not it is accurate? Iow, if there is no supporting external evidence, isn't it extremely foolish to accept?

 

[leibowde84]

Ok....you're Jewish, but you don't accept the Pentateuch? Interesting.

I would hope that you are Jewish yourself after reading a comment so rich with condescension.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I would hope that you are Jewish yourself after reading a comment so rich with condescension.

I did not mean to sound condescending! Grief! Isn't the Torah a big part of the Jewish religion? Or have I missed something? I mean, I said "interesting"....nothing derogatory was meant at all! Is that a sensitive subject, or something?

 

[Etritonakin]

Living things are made from an arrangement of non-living elements.

The properties of those elements allow for physical life forms.

Certain things must happen in a specific order to produce physical life forms from the elements.

It is possible that what was set in motion by the big bang caused things to happen in that specific order -even if God caused the big bang.
It is possible that it required creative action afterward.

However, we know that the same order -or some other specified order -can be the result of intent and action at any point after the formation of the elements, etc.

It is possible that both may be true.

Life in general may happen spontaneously -more correctly, as a result of natural processes -which may have been set in motion by a creator -but specific changes to DNA or the formation of unique life forms can also happen.

Actually... if anything is living.. everything is living... complex life is made of simple life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are excavations of neolithic towns that go back several thousand years prior to that.

Homo sapiens, according to both the fossil record and genome testing, goes back to roughly 200,000 years ago, which is slightly older than I am.

This ^^^

And I'm wondering why we should start with the Bible to determine the dates for the age of the earth, rather than with the scientific method. It seems arbitrary to me.

 

[Amleth]

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

Unless you want to change the definition of life?

Saying it happened really slowly does not change the fact that when it went from being inorganic elements to being organic life that point was spontaneous creation of life from inorganic elements.

You're thinking about Life in binary terms. There was, and is, a progression from inorganic to organic. Consider that living beings are composed of non-living elements. It's the variable macro and micro (re)organization of the environment which produces new forms and entities.

Think of how the earth was formed from a diffuse cloud of dust and gas into a planetary body with an organized structure and geothermal processes; now there's continents and oceans and what we call "life".

Don't think "spontaneity", think "continuity".

 

[metis]

Ok....you're Jewish, but you don't accept the Pentateuch? Interesting.

All scripture needs to be viewed in context, and it literally makes no sense to ignore reality and take a literalistic interpretation devoid of both reason and common sense in certain cases. Why is it that so many can read much of the symbolism found throughout the scriptures, and yet when it comes to seeing the creation accounts as probable allegory, they balk? Since these accounts were written by Jews using a traditional Jewish approach in writing, maybe it would be best to actually try to see these narratives within that paradigm instead of blindly reading scripture without thinking about how writing styles can be different from today.

In Judaism, our approach has long been that if a literal interpretation of a specific narrative doesn't stand to reason, then go with reason and look for alternative interpretations. To me, it makes not one iota of sense to do otherwise.

 

[metis]

This ^^^

And I'm wondering why we should start with the Bible to determine the dates for the age of the earth, rather than with the scientific method. It seems arbitrary to me.

Yes. Why should we start with the Bible first when it comes to looking at matters of science and objective history? Should we start with the Qur'an first? the Bhagavad Gita?

But I'm obviously "preaching to the choir".

 

[Midnight Rain]

Saying something can come from something does not answer the question as everything all comes from the same source and all organic life forms have inorganic elements as their building blocks.

The difference is life. Something that gives that material the ability to eat, remove waste, move, reproduce and evolve or adapt for survival.

Some scientists think it was bolts of lightning like in a Frankenstein movie. I think we still don't know and maybe that source is no longer here to discover.

I don't know of anyone that thinks it was bolts of lighting. Sounds like a fringe theory rather than a well established one. Currently we don't have a smoking gun answer for abiogensis. But what I stated before is still true and still holds up best for evidence. Until more evidence is brought to light this is what we know.

 

[metis]

That "theory" is actually a hypothesis, although such hypotheses are often included as part of the ToE.

Just being picky.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ok....you're Jewish, but you don't accept the Pentateuch? Interesting.

Many Jews that I've met don't accept a literal interpretation of Genesis. To me, it seems quite common actually not to take Genesis literal. It's more of the fringe cult elements that do. I could be wrong, but I haven't met a single Jew yet that are literalists like the Christians, I'm sure they exist, but I haven't met one. However, with Christians, you can't throw a stick without hitting one that thinks that Genesis is some scientific history book. Why is it that Christians think they know the Jewish religious literature better than the Jews?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes. Why should we start with the Bible first when it comes to looking at matters of science and objective history? Should we start with the Qur'an first? the Bhagavad Gita?

But I'm obviously "preaching to the choir".

Amen! LOL

Right. How is the Bible any more or less valid than those? And why should it be? I mean, it's not like we've gleaned mountains of scientific information that we could never have known without the Bible, or something.

Why not start from a place of, "Hmm, we don't know how this works or what happened here so let's start testing and see what the evidence has to show us." It seems slightly more objective to me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

All scripture needs to be viewed in context, and it literally makes no sense to ignore reality and take a literalistic interpretation devoid of both reason and common sense in certain cases. Why is it that so many can read much of the symbolism found throughout the scriptures, and yet when it comes to seeing the creation accounts as probable allegory, they balk? Since these accounts were written by Jews using a traditional Jewish approach in writing, maybe it would be best to actually try to see these narratives within that paradigm instead of blindly reading scripture without thinking about how writing styles can be different from today.

In Judaism, our approach has long been that if a literal interpretation of a specific narrative doesn't stand to reason, then go with reason and look for alternative interpretations. To me, it makes not one iota of sense to do otherwise.

Unfortunately, you cannot take the first half of a book, without taking into account the second half, and expect to get the full picture of what the Author (of the whole thing) is telling us. I'm referring to the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures as the first part, and the Greek Scriptures as the second part. (I figured you would get what I was referencing, but thought I'd better state it, for others reading.)

Ex.: the serpent, in Genesis 3. Without reading Revelation 12:9, one may not realize who was behind that serpent.

Now, I know Judaism only accepts the first part. But, to get clarification of many issues and statements, all of it needs to be accepted.

I gave another example earlier, showing how Hebrews 4, written by the Apostle Paul, gives a person the understanding that those creative days in Genesis were not to be taken literally, but rather were unspecified lengths of time, like with Jehovah's Rest Day continuing into Paul's lifetime.

Understanding both parts of the Bible, how they really harmonize, strengthens one's confidence (faith) in it, and the True God (Yahweh, not Jesus) behind it.

Take care, my cousin. Have a great day.

 

[metis]

Unfortunately, you cannot take the first half of a book, without taking into account the second half, and expect to get the full picture of what the Author (of the whole thing) is telling us. I'm referring to the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures as the first part, and the Greek Scriptures as the second part. (I figured you would get what I was referencing, but thought I'd better state it, for others reading.)

Ex.: the serpent, in Genesis 3. Without reading Revelation 12:9, one may not realize who was behind that serpent.

Now, I know Judaism only accepts the first part. But, to get clarification of many issues and statements, all of it needs to be accepted.

I gave another example earlier, showing how Hebrews 4, written by the Apostle Paul, gives a person the understanding that those creative days in Genesis were not to be taken literally, but rather were unspecified lengths of time, like with Jehovah's Rest Day continuing into Paul's lifetime.

Understanding both parts of the Bible, how they really harmonize, strengthens one's confidence (faith) in it, and the True God (Yahweh, not Jesus) behind it.

Take care, my cousin. Have a great day.

When symbolism is used in Tanakh, it is used as if the events involved were real. And an example in your scriptures are the parables of Jesus, which are not ever labeled as being just symbolic or based on real events. If you know much about early church history, this was debated, and the consensus is that it really didn't make any difference one way or the other-- it's what morals and values are being taught. When reading scripture, it's always wise to keep this in mind, namely what is the author really teaching us that we can use today?

I gotta go.

 

[Ouroboros]

Unfortunately, you cannot take the first half of a book, without taking into account the second half, and expect to get the full picture of what the Author (of the whole thing) is telling us. I'm referring to the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures as the first part, and the Greek Scriptures as the second part. (I figured you would get what I was referencing, but thought I'd better state it, for others reading.)

And this is what the Muslims say about both OT and NT and how the Qur'an explains everything correctly. You can't understand OT and NT without being a Muslim.

Now, there are many different sub-groups or denominations (heretics?) of Christianity the past 200 years that also say the same thing. Only their own holy scripture that adds to the original one is now the right one that explains it all. No one can understand the older texts without reading my God-inspired text that I'm giving you right now... Yeah, yeah... Everyone thinks he/she is right and everyone else should just listen.