Transition from chemistry to biology

for the same reason that we cannot bring the dead back to lifeLets say we pull a fish out of a fishtank and allow it to suffocate, why can't we breath life back into it again even if all its organs are in completely intact?Life is more then just chemical elements, environment and physics. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

yet that fish would still have all the chemicals needed for life to existthose chemicals, even when they are all together...even when they are in a perfectly formed body with all its necessary parts, do not produce life

its not hard to grasp, i completely agree which is why it is impossible that the chemicals can miraculously 'react' to bring something to lifelife is obviously much more complicated then a chance chemical reaction...to believe otherwise is to believe contrary to observable facts such as that which you have stated here.Abiogenesis is impossible.

and in all those billions of places and possibilities, only 1 spot produced life?spontaneous generation/abiogenesis was demolished by Pasteur's experiments a long time ago. It certainly does not occur in our world today, and you would think that if anything, the probablility of it occuring in a world full of life and with all the right conditons, it would happen. They cant even replicate it in the lab under controlled conditions. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

yes your right, thats a good pick up.I guess i used this example because the dead thing contains all the chemicals required for life...but those chemicals do not interact with each other the way abiogenesis would suggest they do.If life is a result of a chemical reaction, why should it ever end, why should those chemicals stop interacting and cause death??? and what was the force that got them interacting in the first place????What kept them interacting throughout the creatures life?It creates more questions then it answers. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

and maybe flying saucers are real

cutting off my sentence half way may make it seem like that is what i am saying...put it altogether and its saying something completely different though.

that article doesnt really say abiogenesis has been replicated does it? I've yet to hear of anyone creating life in a lab. Personally i think what scientists are slowly discovering is how God created life. Life is a complicated thing that obviously needs a lot of direction...it seems most unlikely that it would naturally.your 2nd link shows just how complex life is and the probability of it happening without direction seem ludicrous.
They created an artificial molecule that could copy itself but even they said "this is not the same as bringing it to life. It self-replicated to a point, but eventually clogged up in shapes that could no longer sew RNA pieces together. "It was a real dog," Joyce says.the conclusion of the article is:
"If somebody makes something great in the lab, it's fantastic. But really the origin of life on Earth is an historical problem that we're never going to be able to witness and verify," he says.sounds like biologists have a long LONG way to go before they understand how life came to be.

hey bluejay,i get what you're saying and it does make sense. i believe they've been designed to continue indefinitely. For instance you can calculate whether man lives longer than other mammals. take the mouse the mouse for instance, its heart rate is about 550 beats per minute. Multiply the number of minutes per year (526,000) by the number of heartbeats per minute and then multiply that by the life expectancy of the mouse (a little over 3 years), we have some 950,000,000 heartbeats for the average mouse.Do the same for the largest mammal on earth, the elephant with a heartrate of 20 per minute, over a 70-year life-span comes to about 736,300,000 heartbeats.so think about it...in general, mammals get about 1billion or less heartbeats in a lifetime. But now do the same calculation for man. We have approx 72 heartbeats per minute and a life expectancy of 70 years, the number of heartbeats given to man is more then twice as much as other mammals 2,600,000,000. I dont know what this has got to do with the subject, but it shows that we have far more potential then other mammals. (besides this there is the biblical account of humans living for many hundreds of years pre flood)

well you've interpreted my sentence incorrectlywhat 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.

that is a strange argument to makeI 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.

there is no fire in the grave