Every living entity comes from another living entity

[I-Ching]

According to the "scientists" life comes from matter. I would like to know what evidence they have? I believe that no such living entity has ever been found naturally nor have they ever been able to produce one artificially. Although every living entity ever observed comes from another living entity, still they insist that live can emerge from matter. Quite strange.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to the "scientists" life comes from matter. I would like to know what evidence they have? I believe that no such living entity has ever been found naturally nor have they ever been able to produce one artificially. Although every living entity ever observed comes from another living entity, still they insist that live can emerge from matter. Quite strange.

Welcome!
Abiogenesis is an unverified theory.
Perhaps it will be verified some day.

 

[Gunfingers]

Well the first issue we come up with is a definition of "life". Are amino acids alive? Viruses? Robots?

Biologists usually use these criteria, which is why I mention viruses in particular. Viruses are biological organisms, they have DNA and evolve just like other biological organisms, but are not considered "alive" by many because they do not metabolize and cannot reproduce without a host.

Now as for actually creating something that could be considered alive, there are a few things that come to mind. The Miller-Urey experiment is one of the earliest evidences of abiogenesis. They didn't create anything "alive" by most definitions, but were able to produce the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, in an environment similar to early earth. The field of synthetic biology is also interesting, and in it new types of organisms are made for a variety of purposes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is an instance of Inference to Best Explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to the "scientists" life comes from matter. I would like to know what evidence they have? I believe that no such living entity has ever been found naturally nor have they ever been able to produce one artificially. Although every living entity ever observed comes from another living entity, still they insist that live can emerge from matter. Quite strange.

What's the next step your argument?

Are you going to use the fact that nobody observed abiogenesis to argue for special creation by God, an event that nobody's observed either?

Or are you going to argue simultaneously that every living thing needs a living creator, and then argue that God, despite being alive, doesn't need a living creator himself?

AFAICT, there's no way to argue against abiogenesis while arguing in favour of special creation that doesn't end up in hypocrisy... except arguing for God on his own merits. That approach isn't generally hypocritical; just normally fruitless.

However, maybe you've got some other approach in mind. If so, I'm all ears.

 

[Revoltingest]

We also haven't been able to conduct any experiments to observe the gods.
(Bashful beings they must be! At least nascent organisms wouldn't purposely hide their existence from us.)

 

[I-Ching]

Welcome!
Abiogenesis is an unverified theory.
Perhaps it will be verified some day.

Just like the Christians are waiting for Jesus the atheists waiting for some actual proof for their beliefs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just like the Christians are waiting for Jesus the atheists waiting for some actual proof for their beliefs.

Observation of abiogenesis would support the theory (& be interesting), but not prove it.
This atheist isn't waiting for it at all.

 

[I-Ching]

Now as for actually creating something that could be considered alive, there are a few things that come to mind. The Miller-Urey experimentis one of the earliest evidences of abiogenesis. They didn't create anything "alive" by most definitions, but were able to produce the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, in an environment similar to early earth. The field of synthetic biology is also interesting, and in it new types of organisms are made for a variety of purposes.

An amino acid is not impressive. That's like creating one brick in house or even less.
The Wikipedia article you mention clearly states that synthetic life has not being created a living entity and that the closest attempt was a almost 1:1 reproduction of naturally occurring DNA that was inserted in an already living bacteria.
Hardly convincing!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An amino acid is not impressive. That's like creating one brick in house or even less.
The Wikipedia article you mention clearly states that synthetic life has not being created a living entity and that the closest attempt was a almost 1:1 reproduction of naturally occurring DNA that was inserted in an already living bacteria.
Hardly convincing!

Well, what's your alternative explanation? We can examine both and decide between them which one is more likely.

 

[PolyHedral]

An amino acid is not impressive. That's like creating one brick in house or even less.

Not quite. It's more like building one self-assembling brick.

 

[I-Ching]

What's the next step your argument?
Are you going to use the fact that nobody observed abiogenesis to argue for special creation by God, an event that nobody's observed either?

We have not observed the creation but we can observe billions of living entities that come from other living entities, while we can not observe one that comes from matter.

Or are you going to argue simultaneously that every living thing needs a living creator, and then argue that God, despite being alive, doesn't need a living creator himself?

God by definition is being who is omnipotent and therefore not subject to time. He is neither born nor does He die. He is the source of time.

 

[I-Ching]

We also haven't been able to conduct any experiments to observe the gods.
(Bashful beings they must be! At least nascent organisms wouldn't purposely hide their existence from us.)

You can observe billions of living entities coming from others and this is my evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have not observed the creation but we can observe billions of living entities that come from other living entities, while we can not observe one that comes from matter.

That's a bit of a false dichotomy: living entities are matter. You and I sure aren't just EM radiation.

God by definition is being who is omnipotent and therefore not subject to time. He is neither born nor does He die. He is the source of time.

But now you're moving the goalposts. How many times have you seen a living entity come from "a being who is omnipotent and therefore not subject to time, who is neither born nor does he die"? I haven't seen it happen once.

You've seen many instances of things being born from things that are themselves born. Inferring an unborn, uncreated God at the beginning of this breaks the pattern as much as abiogenesis does.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can observe billions of living entities coming from others and this is my evidence.

This is evidence of what you observe, but it isn't evidence against biogenesis.
Moreover, is is possible that biogenesis could possibly have only occurred during environmental conditions which no longer exist.
Once started, new life would come into being by a different mechanism. Life even alters the environment, as exemplified by all the highly reactive airborne oxygen.
What evidence is there for supreme beings (ie, gods) coming into existence?

 

[1948_its_happening]

The argument only exists because the nature of Christians is that they are in fact ignorant of the details of their faith.

Most Christians are saved by grace like a patient who makes it into the emergency unit and then wakes up healed. They have no idea what exactly has happened but they know without a doubt something has happened to them.

Unfortunately these blessed ones like myself who have been saved by grace and not a wealth of knowledge and understanding try to make aruments with scientists based on their wobbly knowledge of scripture and even wobblier understanding of science.

Any one who has carefully studied scripture will see know argument against evolution. the bible never disputes it. No where does it say Adam and Eve were the first of men and woman. It simply says they were the beginning of the story of the Jewish nation.

If you have not notices the bible is only a record of the jews and those they came into contact with. The bible even admits that when Cain killed Able he went to the land of Nod where he took a wife. Where did the city come from?

No where does it say the earth is 6000 years old. Surely the explanation of days is metaphorical and easy to understand for people thousands of years ago. What is a day anyway before the earth was creaded to revolve in 24 hrs.

I am a scientist and have all respect for the honest unbias search for truth. I can say honestly I see no fight between scripture and Science.

Rather it is a arguament between uninformed Christians and frustrated Atheists.

 

[I-Ching]

That's a bit of a false dichotomy: living entities are matter. You and I sure aren't just EM radiation.

What is a living entity is another issue? But I am happy to accept something that can die as being living.

But now you're moving the goalposts. How many times have you seen a living entity come from "a being who is omnipotent and therefore not subject to time, who is neither born nor does he die"? I haven't seen it happen once.

By logic we can infer there must be an original living entity that is the source of all the others.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rather it is a arguament between uninformed Christians and frustrated Atheists.

"Frustrated"? Not this atheist. Frustration comes from unmet expectations. I don't
expect minds to change in a discussion. (It does happen from time to time though.)

 

[I-Ching]

This is evidence of what you observe, but it isn't evidence against biogenesis.
Moreover, is is possible that biogenesis could possibly have only occurred during environmental conditions which no longer exist.
Once started, new life would come into being by a different mechanism. Life even alters the environment, as exemplified by all the highly reactive airborne oxygen.
What evidence is there for supreme beings (ie, gods) coming into existence?

First of all the term I think you intend to use Abiogenesis.
These are all nice beliefs. If that is true then reproduce that environment in the lab and create one blade of grass. Is that too much to ask?

Supreme Being by definition doesn't come into existence, due his Supremacy existence comes from Him

 

[I-Ching]

The argument only exists because the nature of Christians is that they are in fact ignorant of the details of their faith.

Most Christians are saved by grace like a patient who makes it into the emergency unit and then wakes up healed. They have no idea what exactly has happened but they know without a doubt something has happened to them.

Unfortunately these blessed ones like myself who have been saved by grace and not a wealth of knowledge and understanding try to make aruments with scientists based on their wobbly knowledge of scripture and even wobblier understanding of science.

Any one who has carefully studied scripture will see know argument against evolution. the bible never disputes it. No where does it say Adam and Eve were the first of men and woman. It simply says they were the beginning of the story of the Jewish nation.

If you have not notices the bible is only a record of the jews and those they came into contact with. The bible even admits that when Cain killed Able he went to the land of Nod where he took a wife. Where did the city come from?

No where does it say the earth is 6000 years old. Surely the explanation of days is metaphorical and easy to understand for people thousands of years ago. What is a day anyway before the earth was creaded to revolve in 24 hrs.

I am a scientist and have all respect for the honest unbias search for truth. I can say honestly I see no fight between scripture and Science.

Rather it is a arguament between uninformed Christians and frustrated Atheists.

I'm not a Christian at least not by your definition of one and I don't know how your post exactly relates to this thread