The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive. The quantity and frequency of the reactions are irrelevant.
Where, precisely, is this boundary? You seem to understand the difference between living and nonliving matter as a discrete barrier that lends itself to such binary classifications.
Please provide your dewfinition of "life." I've never seen one that so clearly classified matter as "living" or "nonliving" that we could legitimately say that anything could possibly be "nonliving" and then "the next moment" be "iving."
Sadly not on topic here, but do you really want to go there? I mean, your comments on the LoB are beyond the pale stupid, but they are works of genius compared to your gutteral utterances on physics. Would you like me to start a thread on disecting your complete lack of understanding? Nosy and others are still patiently waiting for a basic intro to Lagrangian forumlations of GR, QFT and string theory, but I'm sure they'll happily wait in order to see this.
I will pay you one bajillion internets to do exactly that. Every time you and Son Goku post regarding physics, I learn a lot more.
its not hard to grasp, i completely agree which is why it is impossible that the chemicals can miraculously 'react' to bring something to life
life 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.
Argument from personal incredulity. Simply because you cannot see how it may be possible does not make it impossible.
To disprove abiogenesis as a possibility, you must provide a mechanism that prevents nonliving chemicals from arranging themselves into a living thing, or you must explore every single possible chemical pathway and eliminate all of them as routes to life.
You have done neither. Abiogenesis remains an unproven possibility, with ongoing research that has so far yielded promising results.
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)
Human beings also have access to medical care in areas where the life expectancy averages to 70+ years. Even in first-world nations with excellent healthcare, animals don't receive nearly the care humans do. And what of the humans who live to over 120 years, nearly twice the average life expectancy?
It sounds like you're pulling nonsense from thin air, Peg.
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.
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.
First off, an appeal to autority is a logical fallacy. Just because Pasteur may have said something doesnt make it true. Quotes mean nothing. Evidence means everything. Pasteur produced no mechanism that prevents nonliving matter from forming life. None of his observations did anything of the sort.
Second, the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is significant. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter may, through natural chemical reactions, spontaneously result in life. Spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently extant life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter - that is, maggots form from dead meat, etc.
And if you ask me whether abiogenesis is spontaneous genaration my answer is yes.
And you'd be wrong. Fortunately, you are not responsible for defining terms.
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?
As I said, spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently existing life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter, such as maggots spontaneously forming from dead meat instead of hatching from eggs laid by a parent fly.
Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter can, through natural chemical reactions, arrange itself into life. Not fully-formed extant life forms, but primitive, barely-meets-the-definition life.
If you can't tell the difference between those two, I can't help you.
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.
Oddly enough, greater than 99% of all biologists hold the Theory of Evolution to be an incredibly accurate model of the observed mechanism of change over generations in populations of living things, as well as an accurate explanation for the diversity of life observed on Earth.
That's quite a conspiracy theory you have there.
Now, if you have evidence that the Theory of Evolution is a gigantic fraud, please feel free to illuminate us. If you have no such evidence, I'll be forced to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about, and are simply yet another Creationist arguing from a position of complete ignorance in support of dogmatic belief.