Ohh so it really is spontaneous generation?

[Diederick]

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.

If you had done even the slightest of research - even just typing "the first living cell" into your Google bar, this post would not have existed. So alright, I went through the minor trouble of giving you a couple of links, it's Wikipedia, so you can trust me I'm not trying to poison your computer - Atheists don't work that way:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Proteinoid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cell (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amino acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had some trouble understanding the last phrase in your comment. I think I understand it, in that I think you're trying to get two points across in the same time. I'll try to compose an answer to it:
Wisdom is available to everyone, I have had no special education that would make me more informed on any subject than anyone else (unless it's civil engineering). Considering this, I sometimes am a fool and take certain knowledge for granted in everyone, so I'm sorry if I overestimated you - the title of the post should have been a dead give-away.
I'm not attacking a person, I am attacking a viewpoint that is faulted. I don't see how you wouldn't understand my point in the comment, I want you to do research before posting threads named "Ohh so it really is spontaneous generation?" Which is ridiculous in the first place because no (educated) Atheist thinks it is 'spontaneous generation'. You had no clue when writing the title, so I pointed out that you need to do your homework to avoid being clueless.

I think that's it.

 

[anole3000]

First, I would like to point out that "life" is not an inherent thing. Humans assigned "arbitrary" qualities on what is alive and what isn't .

Now, I'm not gonna BS and pretend like I'm extremely knowledged in the areas of origin and whatnot. Even though life may be eternal (which I completely don't believe), life on Earth is certainly not eternal.

Therefore, there had to be a moment in time when all the things on Earth didn't have all the qualities that scientists has designated as being living, and another moment where there was a thing with all these qualities. Thus, it can be assumed that there was in fact, an origin of life.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

First, I would like to point out that "life" is not an inherent thing. Humans assigned "arbitrary" qualities on what is alive and what isn't .

Now, I'm not gonna BS and pretend like I'm extremely knowledged in the areas of origin and whatnot. Even though life may be eternal (which I completely don't believe), life on Earth is certainly not eternal.

Therefore, there had to be a moment in time when all the things on Earth didn't have all the qualities that scientists has designated as being living, and another moment where there was a thing with all these qualities. Thus, it can be assumed that there was in fact, an origin of life.

If a cell or organism had more than 0, but less than the 7 that you are talking about, would you consider it to be alive or not? Some say that viruses are living, whereas others do not.

I think the debate is not about whether life started, rather the way in which it started. Basically, there was no point where a random lifeform just popped up on the earth (Unless you're a creationist)

GhK.

 

[Bishadi]

'I am therefore I exist."

We can give an opinion of ‘I’, then we are ‘experiencing’ life.

What makes something alive.

Energy upon mass (light). The same progression is observed in living and non-living matter.

I mean we are all matter right, how do thoughts exsist within matter, are your thoughts also matter?

No, energy (light) upon matter. IN mind, knowledge is understood by entangling the memories. When shades combine new colors are created (ideas). putting them to action is the choice

Words are creations of ‘identies’ allow concepts to be categories. These can transcend time just by learning the words, which are learned, as then knowledge evolves by newly coined words.

I don't think there's that clear-cut a distinction between life and non-life. For example, take viruses: are they alive? By some definitions, yes, but by others no.

that is why the list, defining life, is less that perfect. They are the accepted frame.

Tap a pond, that wave is moving in time. That is life itself; energy continuing in time.

That is why evolution continues. Even after the great extinctions, it continued. Life will change by its environment. Even people are different in thoughts by ‘their environment.’

But then there is not really life and non-life at all.

in a sense, that is a reality that any could believe, but then again to simply observe, then we can all find; everything is a part of everthing else and is in a continues motion of change.

What are things that make something classified as alive anyway? Is there some sort of official list?

and the accepted list, is limited because to observe even a reproduction, is pure evidence that is could never comply with the sciences as governed by thermodynamic.

Sure they can make the math usable, but any of honesty and depth can find the reductionary frame of chemistry created by QM, is inconsistent with living processes (see citrus cycle).

That is why to change how energy is observed to ‘light upon mass’… then an understanding to ‘what life is’ and how it can live forever by choice can be understood by living things within existence. (we the people)

The reality is, that a paradigm shift to how mankind currently observes nature (the prophecy of the ‘reversal of nature&#8217 is founded in understand how light is the life of mass.

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.

we can by choice, give our energy to assist ‘life to continue’

with that we can live forever in ‘what we do’

b) Life came from non-living matter.

there is nothing in existence that is not following the true rules of nature ‘except man’.

We are the only thing in existence that can do ‘bad’…………… (become a “loss to the common’…by choice)

We think we are separate as an ‘I’ from nature……….. the garden

 

[Runewolf1973]

From my perspective, the energy of what life is has been there all along, it just changed and took on physical form. All energy is living "animate" energy. There is no such thing as "dead" or "inanimate" energy. In a sense, all energy has "life" because it is animate. It has always been and always will be, can neither be created, nor destroyed, only change form. Life is no different than any other energy in my opinion. It's all living energy....Spirit.

 

[Bishadi]

From my perspective, the energy of what life is has been there all along, it just changed and took on physical form. All energy is living "animate" energy. There is no such thing as "dead" or "inanimate" energy. In a sense, all energy has "life" because it is animate. It has always been and always will be, can neither be created, nor destroyed, only change form. Life is no different than any other energy in my opinion. It's all living energy....Spirit.

in the big scope, you are correct

"It's all living energy....Spirit"

It is when observing the subjective scope we 'experience' life within, that the separations of living things are defined as uniquely isolated such as a 'living thing.'

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

Ooooh, I'm hurt. Go back to sleep.

 

[bobhikes]

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?

I am trying right now to publish a book that explains life simply without the need of believe and how it was and still is being created. Some new theory's very provable. If I get it published I'll let you know. To create life it had to be simple and repeatable and it still has to be going on. I believe I figured out the way. Just want to get it published before letting the cat out of the bad. Everything else is easy to explain using current science. You do need to believe in science though and I'll admit science is a belief.

 

[Diederick]

If a cell or organism had more than 0, but less than the 7 that you are talking about, would you consider it to be alive or not? Some say that viruses are living, whereas others do not.

It's quite simple, life is the organic phenomenon that separates the living and dead from the lifeless. It is the ability to grow, evolve, replicate and (for animals) move. A virus is very much alive.
Since virology is a branch of microbiology, it would be obvious to conclude we must be dealing with a subject of biology here - ergo: something that lives or has been alive.

I think the debate is not about whether life started, rather the way in which it started. Basically, there was no point where a random lifeform just popped up on the earth (Unless you're a creationist)
GhK.

There can be no question about whether life started; how the hell did we end up here if there was no life!? I do agree with your last point, it is preposterous to think a human just arose from the mud of our young planet.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

It's quite simple, life is the organic phenomenon that separates the living and dead from the lifeless. It is the ability to grow, evolve, replicate and (for animals) move. A virus is very much alive.
Since virology is a branch of microbiology, it would be obvious to conclude we must be dealing with a subject of biology here - ergo: something that lives or has been alive.

I agree with your reasoning although I am opposed to your conclusion. Viruses are not alive, by my definition. You may have more knowledge than me, you may not, but from my definition a virus is not alive.
Firstly, living organisms need to contain cells. A cell is the basic component of a living organism. A virus is not a cell. Therefore a virus is not a living thing.
Viruses also cannot move (As you correctly pointed out) and they cannot replicate, or at least not without something that can synthesise proteins. Basically a virus enters through a cell membrane and 'takes over' the cell. Without the cell it is simply a chain of protein, and i'm sure you don't consider a chain of protein to be living (If you do, God help vegetarians).
So a virus is not alive by the majority of definitions and according to pretty much every biologist i've ever asked.
The reason virology is considered to be a bioscience is because the main situation where we can study how viruses work are within cells, which counts as part of biology. Just like studying haemoglobin with relationship to gaseous exchange is biology. That'd be my best guess anyway

There can be no question about whether life started; how the hell did we end up here if there was no life!? I do agree with your last point, it is preposterous to think a human just arose from the mud of our young planet.

I agree for the most part. Although everything is questionable. I personally don't consider this arguement in the same way as you, simply because I believe in Aeya and Aeya means that life has existed as the universe has existed.

But if im wrong about that, then there has to be the start of what we consider to be 'life', so your guess is as good as mine, which is as good as any other.

GhK.

 

[Nepenthe]

Ooooh, I'm hurt. Go back to sleep.

But if I went back to sleep, I might miss your profound and informative posts in this thread such as:

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."

That's a definite maybe then.

Ooooh, I'm hurt. Go back to sleep.

Should I link the contributions from Diedrick, painted wolf and Runewolf1973 here in comparison?

I honestly don't expect anything from creationists since their worldview is so vapid and their evidence non-existent. It just becomes tedious when they essentially troll forums with meaningless posts and never offer anything to actually discuss, while others do all the work in educating them yet they obstinately refuse to listen.

Ignorance may not be bliss, but it's apparently a lot more comfortable than acknowledging you're mistaken.

 

[Diederick]

I agree with your reasoning although I am opposed to your conclusion. Viruses are not alive, by my definition. You may have more knowledge than me, you may not, but from my definition a virus is not alive.
Firstly, living organisms need to contain cells. A cell is the basic component of a living organism. A virus is not a cell. Therefore a virus is not a living thing.
Viruses also cannot move (As you correctly pointed out) and they cannot replicate, or at least not without something that can synthesise proteins. Basically a virus enters through a cell membrane and 'takes over' the cell. Without the cell it is simply a chain of protein, and i'm sure you don't consider a chain of protein to be living (If you do, God help vegetarians).
So a virus is not alive by the majority of definitions and according to pretty much every biologist i've ever asked.
The reason virology is considered to be a bioscience is because the main situation where we can study how viruses work are within cells, which counts as part of biology. Just like studying haemoglobin with relationship to gaseous exchange is biology. That'd be my best guess anyway

Viruses are active, they evolve, grow and can reproduce. We all need third parties to do anything at all. A virus is a cell. You should see the virus as a miniature parasite, it requires the host to grow and reproduce. A virus is a living thing, and for the veggie comment: plants are alive too (or at least were), so that has little to do with it.

Besides, we're drifting off the topic with this virus stuff.

I agree for the most part. Although everything is questionable. I personally don't consider this arguement in the same way as you, simply because I believe in Aeya and Aeya means that life has existed as the universe has existed.
But if im wrong about that, then there has to be the start of what we consider to be 'life', so your guess is as good as mine, which is as good as any other.
GhK.

Sure, everything is questionable, but we have to establish something as real - otherwise we would never have done anything significant.

I have a question for you: if live existed as the universe existed, regardless of what you think of the age of the universe or the Big Bang (or whatever you believe); where did that live exist before this planet was formed - or at least was capable of sustaining life? It sure as [bleep] wasn't floating around in space for billions of years, so where did it come from, if it (always) existed with the universe.

Or am I totally misinterpreting your words?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Besides, we're drifting off the topic with this virus stuff.

Agreed, we both think differently about this.

I have a question for you: if live existed as the universe existed, regardless of what you think of the age of the universe or the Big Bang (or whatever you believe); where did that live exist before this planet was formed - or at least was capable of sustaining life? It sure as [bleep] wasn't floating around in space for billions of years, so where did it come from, if it (always) existed with the universe.

Or am I totally misinterpreting your words?

You're not misinterpreting my words so much as not understanding exactly what I meant by them. Because you don't understand about Aeya that's fine.

Basically, I don't mean that actual creatures were running around in the universe without anything to live on. Aeya has been around since the big bang. Without getting into it too much, you're right in the sense that life wasn't just floating around in space for billions of years...
I'm one for analogies, so a similar thing is to say that electronic machinery has been around since the formation of it's component raw materials. Because the materials exist doesn't mean that the machines have existed for the same amount of time. The materials need to be developed in such a way for them to create what we can define as a machine.

GhK.

 

[Diederick]

Basically, I don't mean that actual creatures were running around in the universe without anything to live on. Aeya has been around since the big bang. Without getting into it too much, you're right in the sense that life wasn't just floating around in space for billions of years...
I'm one for analogies, so a similar thing is to say that electronic machinery has been around since the formation of it's component raw materials. Because the materials exist doesn't mean that the machines have existed for the same amount of time. The materials need to be developed in such a way for them to create what we can define as a machine.
GhK.

So then, where do you differ (if there is any difference at all), with the Atheist perspective that life happened as a consequence of the environmental circumstances and the available materials? If life is like electronics, all materials are there and just need to be assembled. The Atheist brings up logic*, the Deist a superman; to answer the question: "how did life assemble?"

*Personally I enjoy the idea that life formed by chemical reactions, my earlier post in this thread goes deeper into that stuff.

 

[painted wolf]

How about us "Animists" who think nature and god are pretty well entangled.

God is chemistry.

wa:do

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But if I went back to sleep, I might miss your profound and informative posts in this thread such as:

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."

That's a definite maybe then.

Ooooh, I'm hurt. Go back to sleep.

Should I link the contributions from Diedrick, painted wolf and Runewolf1973 here in comparison?

I honestly don't expect anything from creationists since their worldview is so vapid and their evidence non-existent. It just becomes tedious when they essentially troll forums with meaningless posts and never offer anything to actually discuss, while others do all the work in educating them yet they obstinately refuse to listen.

Ignorance may not be bliss, but it's apparently a lot more comfortable than acknowledging you're mistaken.

Hazy, undefined, ambiguous posts require such analysis. It's Biblical. You obviously have a command of such high-falootin terms like, "vapid" and "tedious" or "profound" that us ignant Bibal toters don't get. Just remember:

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I think the best way of explaining my belief here without lecturing you for hours about my religion is to compare it to the sorites paradox. When does x group of quarks being non-life end up being x+1 group of quarks which makes it alive?

But if you want to debate it in the way you seem insistant on, then my best guess is that life was delivered to earth via celestial bodies.

GhK.

 

[painted wolf]

Life is likely a shades of grey situation. Not a true dichotomy.

Viruses are a shade of grey. Prions are an even weaker grey.

Most modern life falls into one end of the spectrum, but early on there were likely a great many more "shades" that have since been lost.

wa:do

 

[Runewolf1973]

Everything is a matter of chemistry in my opinion. Even that energy which would be considered "spirit" or "consciousness" is a matter of the different frequencies and vibrations and actions and reactions of chemicals and naturally existing energy. It is all natural. Life is quite natural isn't it? Well it is my opinion that, by natural laws, whatever energy that causes life cannot be destroyed so it changes form from a physical to non-physical existence. This is not a "supernatural" belief of mine, I do not believe in anything "supernatural". It is my personal "scientific" explanation as to what happens after our physical bodies wear out. We change form like all energy, but that consciousness, that "awareness" does not cease to exist. Life goes on even after "death". But that's the way I see things.

 

[Inky]

Life is likely a shades of grey situation. Not a true dichotomy.

Viruses are a shade of grey. Prions are an even weaker grey.

Most modern life falls into one end of the spectrum, but early on there were likely a great many more "shades" that have since been lost.

wa:do

Exactly.

The concept of something being "alive" is, at its base, a human construct that simplifies things for our convenience. At some point way back in human history we decided that there was a meaningful difference between animals/plants and everything else, and that distinction was called "life". Nature didn't draw that dividing line; we did. Then much later we learned about viruses and started to genetically construct our own microbes and other such things, and now we're realizing that maybe the sharp line between "alive" and "not alive" doesn't exist after all.

It's like how we use the words "blue" and "green" as if they were two completely different things. There are some things that are definitely blue, and some that are without a doubt green. In the same way, a cat is definitely alive, and a rock is definitely not alive. But sometimes you get blue-green, or green-blue, or a shade that's so close to plain blue that you call it blue and your friend calls it blue-green and you just have to agree to disagree.