Ohh so it really is spontaneous generation?

[Nepenthe]

Well in both of those life did come from non-living matter, If life had an origin then it came from non-life, otherwise it came from life that previously had an origin. Then abiogenesis is the notion that life slowly crawled from non-living matter.

You still don't get it. Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how simple organic molecules can combine to form more complex molecules, then into proto-cells, and eventually into unambiguously living cells. Your misunderstanding hinges on a clear cut distinction between life and non-life- yet there just isn't a sharp divide, but a subtle doppler-like shift. As someone else already mentioned, the definition of life is hazy, and viruses are a good example of that thin grey line.

 

[idea]

It can, I'm not talking about all that. All I'm saying is there is a limited number of options.
a) Life is eternal.

If a - would you say some part of all life is eternal?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from another thread...
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...888-all-spirit-subatomic-matter-can-only.html

Even Atheists Go To (Insert Afterlife Here)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07...atheists-g.html

The brain could transmit, rather than produce, our mental life. Holt uses the metaphor of a radio that stops playing when damaged, though the signal is still broadcast… Each of us, Leslie submits, is immortal because our life patterns are but an aspect of an “existentially unified” cosmos that will persist after our death. The soul consists of information, not matter. And one of the deepest principles of quantum theory, called “unitarity,” forbids the disappearance of information.

Linking Life After Death To Subatomic Physics
1933 Lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge FRS

When we consider the question or Survival from the physical point of view we are up against the ancient problem of the connection between mind and body. The body is certainly made of matter, but matter is inert, it never does anything, it is completely controlled by the forces acting upon it, which forces exist in the empty space surrounding the atoms. Left to itself, matter merely continues in whatever state it was last made to accept. If it was spinning, it continues to spin with constant angular momentum. It has no power of changing its state or of stopping. If it was in a state of locomotion, that motion also continues unaltered. This is called the law of inertia, and to it all material atoms are absolutely obedient, whether they form part of an engine or of a clockwork mechanism or of an animated body. There is no exception. All matter is inert.

If any change is observed in atomic or material behaviour, it is a sign of some activity, some energy apart from matter, demonstrating its existence by acting upon matter, and causing some acceleration or retardation proportionate to the force exerted. This is called the second law of motion. Furthermore, every kind of energy known to us exists in the empty space between the atoms and exerts equal force upon the boundary atoms at either end of that space, so that every action is accompanied by an equal opposite reaction. This is called the third law of motion, or it might be called the law of energy. Energy only makes itself manifest by its effect on material bodies, but its main existence is in space. We have no sense organ for perceiving energy itself, our senses tell us of nothing but matter. We can see the results of energy as expended upon matter, but we have no direct apprehension of the energy. We are not acquainted with anything in the Universe save by its effect upon matter, and that is the origin of our tendency to philosophic materialism; we are liable to doubt whether things not apparent to the senses can have a real existence, though there is no justification for such a doubt. … read on

A few other random articles just from googling…

Does Death Exist?
Maybe not, according to some quantum theorists
Does Death Exist? - Maybe not, according to some quantum theorists - Softpedia

Survival Physics - MIT
Pearson: Afterlife Quantum Physics

A rational Scientific Explanation For so-Called Psychic Phenomena
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background...pf_rational.pdf
For over 100 years we have had the experimental scientific proof that we all survive the death of our physical bodies, that the living mind separates from the dead brain. Refer to the repeatable experiments…. Thanks to recent exciting discoveries in subatomic physics, the study of the invisible part of the universe, we now have the missing mathematical theory that matches the pioneering experiments… The reports of Jesus physically appearing in front of his disciples after he was killed are no longer to be considered as supernatural – above of beyond the laws of nature. … we know now exactly where the so-called next world is. It is all around us, the life force that drives our physical bodies carries on operating on another wavelength at what we call death. This part of the universe that is normally out of range of our five physical senses. .. We now know that was has been known as psychic phenomena and the religion of Spiritualism is in fact a branch of physics that should be called “subatomic phenomena”.

 

[Sonic247]

You still don't get it. Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how simple organic molecules can combine to form more complex molecules, then into proto-cells, and eventually into unambiguously living cells. Your misunderstanding hinges on a clear cut distinction between life and non-life- yet there just isn't a sharp divide, but a subtle doppler-like shift. As someone else already mentioned, the definition of life is hazy, and viruses are a good example of that thin grey line.

Okay, so is there any other examples?

 

[Inky]

Well okay it wasn't alive, but then it was so still at some point there had to be that transition and BAM! it's alive.

That's a perfect example of something known as the heap fallacy. If you have three grains of sand, obviously you don't have a heap of sand. Keep adding grains one by one, and eventually you will have a heap, but when does it change over? A hundred grains, a thousand? There's no distinct line. You don't add that essential extra grain and BAM! it's a heap.

Our working definition of "alive" is like that--there's no strict distinction between alive and not-alive. It's based on a collection of traits that were chosen because we associate them with living things we know about.

 

[Sonic247]

If a - would you say some part of all life is eternal?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from another thread...
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...888-all-spirit-subatomic-matter-can-only.html

Even Atheists Go To (Insert Afterlife Here)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07...atheists-g.html

The brain could transmit, rather than produce, our mental life. Holt uses the metaphor of a radio that stops playing when damaged, though the signal is still broadcast… Each of us, Leslie submits, is immortal because our life patterns are but an aspect of an “existentially unified” cosmos that will persist after our death. The soul consists of information, not matter. And one of the deepest principles of quantum theory, called “unitarity,” forbids the disappearance of information.

Linking Life After Death To Subatomic Physics
1933 Lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge FRS

When we consider the question or Survival from the physical point of view we are up against the ancient problem of the connection between mind and body. The body is certainly made of matter, but matter is inert, it never does anything, it is completely controlled by the forces acting upon it, which forces exist in the empty space surrounding the atoms. Left to itself, matter merely continues in whatever state it was last made to accept. If it was spinning, it continues to spin with constant angular momentum. It has no power of changing its state or of stopping. If it was in a state of locomotion, that motion also continues unaltered. This is called the law of inertia, and to it all material atoms are absolutely obedient, whether they form part of an engine or of a clockwork mechanism or of an animated body. There is no exception. All matter is inert.

If any change is observed in atomic or material behaviour, it is a sign of some activity, some energy apart from matter, demonstrating its existence by acting upon matter, and causing some acceleration or retardation proportionate to the force exerted. This is called the second law of motion. Furthermore, every kind of energy known to us exists in the empty space between the atoms and exerts equal force upon the boundary atoms at either end of that space, so that every action is accompanied by an equal opposite reaction. This is called the third law of motion, or it might be called the law of energy. Energy only makes itself manifest by its effect on material bodies, but its main existence is in space. We have no sense organ for perceiving energy itself, our senses tell us of nothing but matter. We can see the results of energy as expended upon matter, but we have no direct apprehension of the energy. We are not acquainted with anything in the Universe save by its effect upon matter, and that is the origin of our tendency to philosophic materialism; we are liable to doubt whether things not apparent to the senses can have a real existence, though there is no justification for such a doubt. … read on

A few other random articles just from googling…

Does Death Exist?
Maybe not, according to some quantum theorists
Does Death Exist? - Maybe not, according to some quantum theorists - Softpedia

Survival Physics - MIT
Pearson: Afterlife Quantum Physics

A rational Scientific Explanation For so-Called Psychic Phenomena
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background...pf_rational.pdf
For over 100 years we have had the experimental scientific proof that we all survive the death of our physical bodies, that the living mind separates from the dead brain. Refer to the repeatable experiments…. Thanks to recent exciting discoveries in subatomic physics, the study of the invisible part of the universe, we now have the missing mathematical theory that matches the pioneering experiments… The reports of Jesus physically appearing in front of his disciples after he was killed are no longer to be considered as supernatural – above of beyond the laws of nature. … we know now exactly where the so-called next world is. It is all around us, the life force that drives our physical bodies carries on operating on another wavelength at what we call death. This part of the universe that is normally out of range of our five physical senses. .. We now know that was has been known as psychic phenomena and the religion of Spiritualism is in fact a branch of physics that should be called “subatomic phenomena”.

Just a heads up, I'm probably not going to read all this. Not that I'm saying it's not good or anything it's just I'm more about conversational type writing, you know like just one thing at a time. I'm sure that much information would take a week to disect on any thread. No offence though

 

[Sonic247]

That's a perfect example of something known as the heap fallacy. If you have three grains of sand, obviously you don't have a heap of sand. Keep adding grains one by one, and eventually you will have a heap, but when does it change over? A hundred grains, a thousand? There's no distinct line. You don't add that essential extra grain and BAM! it's a heap.

Our working definition of "alive" is like that--there's no strict distinction between alive and not-alive. It's based on a collection of traits that were chosen because we associate them with living things we know about.

Well with sand it's alot simpler. It's just one factor: quantity. Anyway what are some thing on the "thin grey line" between life and non-life. Someone mentioned viruses.

 

[idea]

Just a heads up, I'm probably not going to read all this. Not that I'm saying it's not good or anything it's just I'm more about conversational type writing, you know like just one thing at a time. I'm sure that much information would take a week to disect on any thread. No offence though

sory, here is the short version: "eternal life" is not just a religious idea...

see:
Even Atheists Go To (Insert Afterlife Here)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07...atheists-g.html

Linking Life After Death To Subatomic Physics
1933 Lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge FRS

Does Death Exist?
Maybe not, according to some quantum theorists
Does Death Exist? - Maybe not, according to some quantum theorists - Softpedia

Survival Physics - MIT
Pearson: Afterlife Quantum Physics

A rational Scientific Explanation For so-Called Psychic Phenomena
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background...pf_rational.pdf

 

[Nepenthe]

Well with sand it's alot simpler. It's just one factor: quantity. Anyway what are some thing on the "thin grey line" between life and non-life. Someone mentioned viruses.

It's hard to say; there are many examples of specific features that straddle the barriers between life and non-life. RNA is one example, as is the clumping together of molecules to form lipid structures, specifically selectively permeable membranes, is a specific quality that made prokaryotic life possible while the lipids are not life themselves.

But I suspect your question isn't answerable the way your looking for it to be. It's like when creationists ask for a "missing link" (while not even understanding what they're asking for) then insisting that the detailed and well understood transition from, say, horses, from the Loxolophus to Tetraclaenodon is incomplete because there are subtle gaps in the fossil record. So every time something is discovered to fill in that gap, the creationists will still insist they're not transitional since there's still a small space in the record. Same with the whole life/non life issue. There will always be empty spaces despite the abundance of evidence that has filled in so many previous gaps of knowledge.

Tons of excellent essays on what you're looking for at this link at Talk Origins.

 

[Diederick]

Ok so over billions and billions of years things mixed together and became self replicating: So it's not spontaneous generation because it took billions of years. Well okay it wasn't alive, but then it was so still at some point there had to be that transition and BAM! it's alive. But then that makes you think, are you really alive at all. What makes something alive. I mean we are all matter right, how do thoughts exsist within matter, are your thoughts also matter. Or a combination of matter and energy where you can project images and see them with you minds eye. I mean there was no life so what were the forces that eventually brought about human life, wind, gravity, tides etc. These are what shaped the matter into a self-replicating cell. Well it's fine if you believe that but because no one knows how that could happen would you at least admit that it takes a certain degree of faith?

What a load of crap.

We have a very full understanding of how life most probably came to be, why there are tidal streams, gravity, wind, and everything else natural. You are obviously very uneducated on these subjects.

I recommend you go visit any (secular) university's library, or do the research on the Internet. Evolution, Nature Physics and Relativity are all very much established facts, not 'theories' as some religious people prefer to call them (it's easier on their mind you see).

 

[Nepenthe]

I recommend you go visit any (secular) university's library, or do the research on the Internet. Evolution, Nature Physics and Relativity are all very much established facts, not 'theories' as some religious people prefer to call them (it's easier on their mind you see).

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

 

[painted wolf]

Life did not spontaneously generate. It was a slow process involving many steps in increasingly complex chemical reactions.
Quite a bit of good research has been done to document some of these steps. Like the formation of cellular membranes from lipids and the origin of self replicating molecules.

Whole cells didn't simply pop out of nowhere. (as in spontaneous generation).

YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/75049-chemistry-beginings-life.html

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

Life did not spontaneously generate. It was a slow process involving many steps in increasingly complex chemical reactions.
Quite a bit of good research has been done to document some of these steps. Like the formation of cellular membranes from lipids and the origin of self replicating molecules.

Whole cells didn't simply pop out of nowhere. (as in spontaneous generation).

YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/75049-chemistry-beginings-life.html

wa:do

Awesome stuff!

The whole spontaneous generation/abiogenesis creationist canard just won't go away. You can reference cholesteryl chains coating vesicles that are made up of lipids, or lectin binding or... whatever- and it all doesn't matter in the end.

Creationist criticisms have never offered anything to actually alter research. They're like a magician who claims they're proficient at sleights but don't even have a thumbtip much less a deck of cards.

 

[Sonic247]

What a load of crap.

We have a very full understanding of how life most probably came to be, why there are tidal streams, gravity, wind, and everything else natural. You are obviously very uneducated on these subjects.

I recommend you go visit any (secular) university's library, or do the research on the Internet. Evolution, Nature Physics and Relativity are all very much established facts, not 'theories' as some religious people prefer to call them (it's easier on their mind you see).

Be more specific, give details about the probable origin of the first cell what process it went through. And believe it or not I am willing to listen. But keep in mind wisdom has a very practical side, if you just attack the person without giving an explanation of your own then how am I supposed to think you understand thing that are more complicated.

 

[Sonic247]

Awesome stuff!

The whole spontaneous generation/abiogenesis creationist canard just won't go away. You can reference cholesteryl chains coating vesicles that are made up of lipids, or lectin binding or... whatever- and it all doesn't matter in the end.

Creationist criticisms have never offered anything to actually alter research. They're like a magician who claims they're proficient at sleights but don't even have a thumbtip much less a deck of cards.

That is no where close to something becoming a living organism really. Honestly I think it's alchemy. Lead is almost gold if you looked at it a certain way, but they never turned lead into gold. The truth is while it is an interesting study the answers that scientists have been looking for just haven't been found. So it isn't a well established fact like gravity is. Think about it this way, when spontaneous generation was first criticized it wasn't received well. (I'll try to add some citations for that, there in the abiogenesis WIKIpedia article earlier in the thread) And they didn't completely understand how it was supposed to work, but there really was great circumstantial evidence, however there were other factors that they didn't see so they came to the wrong conclusion. Now we may have more accumalated knowledge but are we smarter than they were? It is definately possible for us to make a similiar mistake.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Ok so over billions and billions of years things mixed together and became self replicating: So it's not spontaneous generation because it took billions of years. Well okay it wasn't alive, but then it was so still at some point there had to be that transition and BAM! it's alive. But then that makes you think, are you really alive at all. What makes something alive. I mean we are all matter right, how do thoughts exsist within matter, are your thoughts also matter. Or a combination of matter and energy where you can project images and see them with you minds eye. I mean there was no life so what were the forces that eventually brought about human life, wind, gravity, tides etc. These are what shaped the matter into a self-replicating cell. Well it's fine if you believe that but because no one knows how that could happen would you at least admit that it takes a certain degree of faith?

Dude, I started a thread a while back asking people for their definition of "faith" and EVERYone had a different answer. It was very disheartening. What do you mean by "faith" in the context of this question.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You still don't get it. Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how simple organic molecules can combine to form more complex molecules, then into proto-cells, and eventually into unambiguously living cells. Your misunderstanding hinges on a clear cut distinction between life and non-life- yet there just isn't a sharp divide, but a subtle doppler-like shift. As someone else already mentioned, the definition of life is hazy, and viruses are a good example of that thin grey line.

Yes, hazy works well, doesn't it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's a perfect example of something known as the heap fallacy. If you have three grains of sand, obviously you don't have a heap of sand. Keep adding grains one by one, and eventually you will have a heap, but when does it change over? A hundred grains, a thousand? There's no distinct line. You don't add that essential extra grain and BAM! it's a heap.

Yes, it's kinda like, "You can't get there from here." Or like pornography, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

 

[painted wolf]

That is no where close to something becoming a living organism really.

No one ever claimed we had created a life form from nothing... however we have created the prerequisite parts and seen many of them in nature.
You don't expect scientists to whip up a complete living thing without learning what the basic parts they need are first do you?

Honestly I think it's alchemy. Lead is almost gold if you looked at it a certain way, but they never turned lead into gold. The truth is while it is an interesting study the answers that scientists have been looking for just haven't been found. So it isn't a well established fact like gravity is.

Do you know what the question the scientists were asking in the study?
The study answered the question quite nicely. Can a strand of RNA self replicate under its own power. It can. No complex cellular machinery required.

Think about it this way, when spontaneous generation was first criticized it wasn't received well. (I'll try to add some citations for that, there in the abiogenesis WIKIpedia article earlier in the thread) And they didn't completely understand how it was supposed to work, but there really was great circumstantial evidence, however there were other factors that they didn't see so they came to the wrong conclusion.

Actually the circumstantial evidence was lousy... which is why it was so quickly discarded experimentally.
Thus far the experiments into abiogenesis have been supported.
Creationism on the other hand can make no predictions, make no experimental procedures and thus can have no evidence. Unless they convince God to create some life in the lab under scientific conditions.

Now we may have more accumalated knowledge but are we smarter than they were? It is definately possible for us to make a similiar mistake.

We are operating under much stricter rules than they ever did. While we may not be smarter, we are better at weeding out mistakes. Experiments must be repeatable, not just by the people who did the first experiment, but by any other scientist who wants to try it.
That's why cold fusion never gets beyond a nutter shouting "I did it!".

I'd also like to point out that it was the scientific method that killed spontaneous generation... and alchemy.

wa:do

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We have a very full understanding of how life most probably came to be...

That's a definite maybe then.

 

[Nepenthe]

Yes, hazy works well, doesn't it.

Yes, it's kinda like, "You can't get there from here." Or like pornography, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

More like "I refuse to acknowledge I have little to no knowledge on the subject but I'll post meaningless empty comments when I have no actual retort."
:sleep:
Wake me when you have anything of relevance to add.