Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the source of life
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 11 of 211 (495543)
01-23-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by homunculus
01-22-2009 1:57 AM


Woah! Slow Down That Rush to Judgement!
Hi homunculus, I have to say, I like your new name a lot better than the old one.
quote:
If organic life is capable of spontaneous generation, then we would see it today, assuming, and certainly on other planets, spawning from non living materials.
Not if the chemistry of the early Earth was very different to today's Earth's. A very special chemical environment was needed, an environment that no longer exists here. As for other planets, who knows what might be out there. Right now, we can barely detect extra-solar planets, even the massive gas giants. Finding life on them would be a tough call. At bit soon to call off the search I would have said.
quote:
1) Earths global positioning, bio climatic temperatures and atmosphere allows life window of opportune growth and generation.
2) Through continuous adaptation and 'evolution' life became fitted for survival on the planet and continued to regenerate and means of infestation. or
3) Meaningful providence; we were placed here by design for a super natural reasoning.
Why the "or" at the end of #2? There is no reason, theoretically at least, why God could not have created us by means of evolution. God could have placed our planet in the habitable zone around the sun, kick-started life and left it to evolve. Where's the beef?
quote:
The trouble with the observations is, in the realm of spontaneous generation and adaptation or "evolution" it would require that organic life generate from 'lifeless' matter or energy (non organic or intelligent functioning) again
I don't think you quite understand what is meant by "organic" in this context. Organic chemistry does not necessarily involve life. You can have organic compounds without life. There are organic compounds in space. Take a look at this wiki page, it might help clear this up.
wiki writes:
The original definition of "organic" chemistry came from the misconception that organic compounds were always related to life processes. However, organic molecules can be produced by processes not involving life. Life as we know it also depends on inorganic chemistry. For example, many enzymes rely on transition metals such as iron and copper; and materials such as shells, teeth and bones are part organic, part inorganic in composition. Apart from elemental carbon, only certain classes of carbon compounds (such as oxides, carbonates, and carbides) are conventionally considered inorganic. Biochemistry deals mainly with the natural chemistry of biomolecules such as proteins, nucleic acids, and sugars.
Source; Organic chemistry - Wikipedia
quote:
My guess is that scientists, especially those that favor evolution, are looking desperately for life on other planets. My guess is they wont find it.
Given the recent discovery of methane on Mars, methane that could possibly be created by living things, this is a pretty bad time to be making such bets I'd say.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by homunculus, posted 01-22-2009 1:57 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 4:27 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024