|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Transition from chemistry to biology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Your whole sentence reads...
Peg writes:
If life is a result of chemical reaction, why should it ever end, why should those chemicals stop interacting and cause death. If life is a result of a chemical reaction, why should it ever end, why should those chemicals stop interacting and cause death??? My interpretation of this is if life is a result of chemical reaction then why should the chemical reactions stop so that living things die? In other words, from what I see right there, it sounds like you're questioning the fact of life being chemical reactions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Taz.
Cool. But, Forum rule #5:
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references. And:
Re: Why we killed "reply quote" -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Taz writes: In other words, from what I see right there, it sounds like you're questioning the fact of life being chemical reactions. well you've interpreted my sentence incorrectly what I'm saying is that 'life' is 'more' then 'just' a string of 'chemical reactions' I dont doubt there are chemical reactions. But to say that chemical reactions, without any direction or manipulation, caused the first life seems to me to be bad science. If scientist have to work as hard as they do, then to think that it could have happened without intervention seems like bad science. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
subbie writes: Pasteur established that life does not develop from non-life in a few hours, days or weeks. If life developed on this planet as is currently theorized, the process took millions or billions of years. I trust you can now see why Pasteur's experiments have no bearing. that is a strange argument to make I thought science was about evidence and proof. He certainly proved that life does not arise from non living matter, yet he was wrong because it 'actually' happens over millions of years??? Pasture was obviously using the scientific method, so please show how your explanation follows the scientific method. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
that is a strange argument to make I thought science was about evidence and proof. He certainly proved that life does not arise from non living matter, yet he was wrong because it 'actually' happens over millions of years??? Pasture was obviously using the scientific method, so please show how your explanation follows the scientific method. Pasteur did not prove that life cannot arise from nonliving matter. He simply showed that modern living things do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. Abiogenesis is in agreement - we do not expect to see maggots or bacteria form spontaneously from nonliving matter. We do predict that naturally occurring compounds can spontaneously self-assemble into self-replicating molecules and eventually form something we would identify as life. There's a rather large difference between the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
themasterdebator Inactive Member |
that is a strange argument to make I thought science was about evidence and proof. He certainly proved that life does not arise from non living matter, yet he was wrong because it 'actually' happens over millions of years??? Pasture was obviously using the scientific method, so please show how your explanation follows the scientific method. Peg, scientific theores changes to meet new data. I don't think you understand the point of the Pasteur experiment. Pasteur was showing that fruit flies will not evolve from meat. This was certainly a correct hypothesis. Pasteur did not show that simple singled celled organisms(which he did not do any tests for in his experiment)could not arise in the conditions found on a young earth. Nobody is denying the validity of Pasteurs findings that fruit flies won't simply spring out of meat, just your attempt to apply this to the current theories of abiogenesis, which have absolutely nothing to do with Pasteur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
themasterdebator Inactive Member |
I dont doubt there are chemical reactions. But to say that chemical reactions, without any direction or manipulation, caused the first life seems to me to be bad science. If scientist have to work as hard as they do, then to think that it could have happened without intervention seems like bad science. Scientists have not had to work hard to create life. They had to work hard to discover and recreate the conditions of the early earth, but once they did that life started on its own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes: He certainly proved that life does not arise from non living matter, yet he was wrong because it 'actually' happens over millions of years??? Pasteur was not wrong, and no one has yet said that he was. The problem is that most people do not understand what it was that he was not wrong about. What Pasteur did was leave rotting meat in a sealed flask for a matter of months. This is not a sufficiently long period of time to evaluate the fate of the meat a billion years from now. By analogy, is a few months a sufficient time period to determine everything that will happen to a developing human baby throughout its lifetime? Drawing conclusions about what will happen several million years (or even just several decades) from now based on what you see happening over a period of mere months is bad science. I do not feel that Pasteur was guilty of bad science. He did not intend his experiments to have far-reaching implications about what will happen millions of years in the future: he only intended it to test a hypothesis whose effects would be seen within a few months. ----- The idea of spontaneous generation (which Pasteur disproved) is not the same as the idea of abiogenesis (which Pasteur did not---nor ever intended to---disprove). Spontaneous generation was a hypothesis about reproduction: it stated that populations of modern animals were replenished by a cycle of spontaneous reassembly that repeated itself regularly in nature. It stated that rotting meat was one of the regular developmental phases in the life cycle of a fly. It was not a hypothesis about whether chemicals could gather into increasingly complex networks of interactions which might one day be called "life." Pasteur's experiments were powerful, not because of what didn't happen in the sealed flasks, but because of the comparison between the open and sealed flasks. Maggots only appeared in the open flasks, to which flies had access. By comparing open flasks to sealed flasks, Pasteur showed that flies reproduce by laying eggs, not be spontaneously morphing from meat. The whole time, the experiment was only about the method of reproduction utilized by flies, not about whether or not life arises from non-life. Edited by Bluejay, : "Whos" is bad English -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, TheMasterDebator.
Welcome to EvC, by the way!
themasterdebator writes: Scientists have not had to work hard to create life. They had to work hard to discover and recreate the conditions of the early earth, but once they did that life started on its own.
Abiogenesis has never been completely recreated in a laboratory setting. If and when it does finally happen, your description will probably fit. But, until then, it would be prudent to use future tense instead of past tense. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Peg writes:
But it is just a string of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions just happen to be in certain arrangements to be the result of what we would call life. what I'm saying is that 'life' is 'more' then 'just' a string of 'chemical reactions'
I don't understand why or how creationists have such problem understand the concept of the whole is more than the combination of its parts. Take a house, for example. It literally is a pile of bricks and wood. It just happens to be arranged in a certain way to be more than the combination of bricks and wood. A mountain is literally a pile of dirt and rock. It just happens to be arranged in a certain way to make it a mountain. Stop lying to misrepresent what science says about life.
I dont doubt there are chemical reactions. But to say that chemical reactions, without any direction or manipulation, caused the first life seems to me to be bad science. If scientist have to work as hard as they do, then to think that it could have happened without intervention seems like bad science.
Stop lying to misrepresent what science says about life or abiogenesis. Aren't you afraid of the hell fire you people preach to us all the time? Or are you really a satanist posing as a christian that likes to break that commandment? Stop lying!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Granny Magda wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mutate and Survive----------------------------------------------------------------------- If you look on the decades of mutation research you will notice that it does not produce anything new. The research show that mutution is harmful rather than beneficial,since out of 1000 mutation only one is good,yet it is still the same organism. If intellectual men will the history of fraud science abiogenesis will be on the top. Its not hard to convinced those people who are already convinced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
Rahvin wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pasteur did not prove that life cannot arise from nonliving matter. He simply showed that modern living things do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. Abiogenesis is in agreement - we do not expect to see maggots or bacteria form spontaneously from nonliving matter. We do predict that naturally occurring compounds can spontaneously self-assemble into self-replicating molecules and eventually form something we would identify as life. There's a rather large difference between the two. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you serious? Pasteur announced that "never will the doctrine of spontaneous genaration recover from the mortal blow stuck by this simple experiment." This statement remains true today since no laboratory model was able to produce that living thing is from non living thing. And if you ask me whether abiogenesis is spontaneous genaration my answer is yes. In general what does abiogenesis holds? In general what does spontaneous genaration holds? Are they not holding that life is came from non - life? So as you think best what is the difference? If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top. Its not hard to convinced those people who are already convinced. Edited by traste, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traste Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 173 Joined: |
the master debator wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peg, scientific theores changes to meet new data. I don't think you understand the point of the Pasteur experiment. Pasteur was showing that fruit flies will not evolve from meat. This was certainly a correct hypothesis. Pasteur did not show that simple singled celled organisms(which he did not do any tests for in his experiment)could not arise in the conditions found on a young earth. Nobody is denying the validity of Pasteurs findings that fruit flies won't simply spring out of meat, just your attempt to apply this to the current theories of abiogenesis, which have absolutely nothing to do with Pasteur. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You are right scientific data often subjected to change, since when scientist discover new facts it will often challenge traditional beliefs. Take for example the long held notion that the earth is the center of the universe,that the earth is flat,and handling of worms can cause warts. Those are just some of the things that ancient people believe to be true,yet scientific discoveries disprove them. As for Pasteur experiment I never heard any scientific discoveries or experiment disprove it. If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top. Its not hard to convinced those people who are already convinced
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
themasterdebator Inactive Member |
You are right scientific data often subjected to change, since when scientist discover new facts it will often challenge traditional beliefs. Take for example the long held notion that the earth is the center of the universe,that the earth is flat,and handling of worms can cause warts. Those are just some of the things that ancient people believe to be true,yet scientific discoveries disprove them. As for Pasteur experiment I never heard any scientific discoveries or experiment disprove it. If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.
1. Nobody has ever disproved Pasteurs experiments. People still believe that flies don't spontantiously grow out of meat. However, Pasteurs experiments had absolutely nothing to do with the modern concept of abiogenesis. 2. The earth being the center of the universe and being flat are both not scientific theories. They were both created by religion(Christianity). The earth not being flat has been known since the times of BC when the Greeks proved it was round. You see, the Christians refused to listen to the scientific data because it contradicted there interpretation of the Bible despite the considerable evidence against them. Hm, now why does that sound familiar? WHKMLA : Era of Discovery, Flat Earth versus Round Globe And I would like you to please source me a scientific study stating that worms cause warts. Myths and old wives tales=/=science 3. If you would like to discuss evolutionary frauds RAZD made an excellent topic for you to list them. I am sure of course that you have done extensive study on the issue instead of just making stuff up, so you will provide a major help to the creatists side for this debate. currently they are vastly outnumbering the "evolutionists" in hoaxes. If you are going to claim evolution science is "at the top" in number of frauds, you are going to have to provide more frauds than are currently listed on the evolution side. But of course with your extensive research in the subject I am sure that won't be a problem at all. http://EvC Forum: Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes -->EvC Forum: Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024