Why is Life?

jesusisGod777

@WinstonC

Are we talking about the cosmology and beggining of human existence or does the argument your stating assume that biological life was already in existence?

jesusisGod777

@WinstonC

Since your new to the site, I have discussed this matter many times.

I don't know if your familiar with how gravitational force effects nuclear reactions or electromagnetism but that alone determines the big bang to be fallacy.

When you are specifically talking about chemical reactions you are talking about whether or not a chemical base is capable of producing a chemical reaction, that scientists claim to be the cause of life which such a claim is fallacious.

Considering cellular activity and behaviour is based on the smaller organisms inside the human body is is fallacy to suggest a Gene that is charecterized by random change produces a similar, consistent result.

As a matter of simply logic, anything charecterized by random behaviour is first inefficient and second lacks intentional awareness.

To suggest a difference between reality and the lack of reality that the theory of evolution suggests determines it's incoherant to theorize that random actions produce any variable of change.

When something lacks intent, it has no base set of instructions and does not work according to a particular function.

Function is based on capacity and something that lacks the capacity to intend for outcomes in the case of evolution would suggest that genes randomly throw around anatomy in perfect symmetry.

When you are talking about innate cause, you are insinuating something has a predetermined capacity to function in a very specific or precise way.

Molecular biology and the human genome project identified the genetic integrity of cellular activity and generic processes as everything on a genetic level is defined as a process, not random activity.

Actions are always based on intentional reasoning.

If you assume that a non-living object has potential to become an organism you run into a series of fallscies.

Anything that is defined as non-living can not influence or has no capacity to live. If something lacks an ability, it can not produce out of it's own traits, what it lacks.

No various combinations or order or variation when you speak about non living objects are able to influence living cellular activity.

jesusisGod777

You are arguing the genetic potential of life from non-living , non-viable sources. Your confused for a reason as there is no relationship between wood and flesh.

jesusisGod777

@WinstonC


I'm going to explain something to you that many more people don't know.

Scientists insinuate a "strong" force ( and this sounds like retarted star wars nerds) holds toghether the atomic structure of atoms.

Scientists have realized that the theory of the big bang, is theoretically impossible is you take into account gravitational force.

Scientists invented a way around sound reasoning called quantum mechanics. A fairy tale imagination land where anything's possible.

Quantum mechanics suggests that gravity did not exist at one point in time so the atomic structure of matter was held toghether by some unknown force that initiated a nuclear explosion.

Considering that explosions only ever occur during two instances: added energy or loss of nuclear fuel you'd have to invent another theory as to how the big bangs THEORYs even possible.

The factor of safety another retarted term in the physical sciences suggests that the factor of safety is a force resisting other forces.

A driving force is a gravitational acceleration of mass.

Resistant force is an opposing force of gravity.

So since science claims that a force which is there way of saying that it shouldn't be possible something is held toghether without an active force, you'd had to suggest that an electron, you'd have to suggest how an electric field the electron moves at a constant velocity at right angles to the field but accelerates along the direction of the field does so without gravity an impossibility considering that electromagnetism is only possible because of gravity. A

is accelerated from rest through a potential difference of 5000 V and then enters a magnetic field of strength 0.02 T acting at right angles to its path.

Realizing that electricity is effected by gravity and that Electrons have a mass of 1/1836 of a proton or neutron's mass and any mass is affected by gravity you'd have to suggest that the universe existed without protons or neutrons or electrons.

Explain to me after hearing what I just wrote how something if not effected by gravity can explode.

Second assuming gravity existed within the matter that had always existed, how such an explosion could only result from mass falling into itself and not creating a black hole.

When a star explodes it creates a black hole.

When matter explodes ( which is what a star is made out of) it creates a universe?

Such is rubbish.

Not even theoretically possible until you start making stuff up like quantum physics where physics can defy reality to justify a theory.

Jesus is Lord.

MayCaesar

Complex behaviors can arise from simple laws. As simple atoms form complex molecules via various chemical and/or nuclear processes, the structure becomes exponentially more sophisticated. At some point, the level of sophistication may reach a point at which the structure begins to evolve on its own, actively interacting with the surrounding environment and self-replicating - that is proto-life. From there, it is just a matter of further evolution, which eventually gives rise to something analogous to neural system and, later, a brain.

We do not know how exactly abiogenesis occurs, but this is the general idea that does not require much specialised knowledge to understand.

jesusisGod777

@MayCaesar

Stating behaviours can arise from laws,is different than stating behaviours result from a Gene that has no form of behaviour or order that is charecterized by random behaviour.

To suggest something is bound by a law insinuates that there is a form of authority in the universe.

Proto-life argues random change, the result of innate capacity.

You can not suggest random behaviour is a capacity for precise,behaviour or that behaviour can develope from imprecision.

Non-living matter requires transitions, in such an argument, from a non-living source to a living source.

To suggest inorganic matter had to have evolved from a source suggests that inorganic matter is a form of evolution.

To suggest that inorganic matter evolved when you can't fuse past iron is fallacious.

Riddle me this, how does something inorganic evolve? 

Inorganic matter has zero biological processes by which transitions can occur so what dictates inorganic transitions? That's the problem with the argument.

minerals may be of biological origin.

Minerals usually don't come from plants and animals.

Considering that  certain minerals can form from a biological origin , it would determined something biological must produce a mineral.

Considering that a source must produce a mineral that is not biological insunuates that the source is non-living, so you must explain how the source can transition from a state that has zero occuring processes.

The argument of proto-life does not address the matter of causal function of cellular activity.

You're dead wrong.

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

@MayCaesar

Activity is defined as a process in living organisms.

I'll counter.

you, from a biological standpoint  shouldn't be alive.

You have the exact same composition as dirt.

Molecularly, you are dirt.

Riddle me this, why are you alive?

jesusisGod777

@MayCaesar

Activity is define as a process in a living organism.

Rocks are inorganic.

Let me shut the big bang up forever.

Considering a biological system is suggested to evolve that would mean that all of the matter in the universe before the big bang was inorganic.

Explain to me which is NOT POSSIBLE how all the matter in the universe pre-bigbang was inorganic and exploded?

What chance do minerals have of exploding?

MayCaesar

@jesusisGod777

"Alive" is just a way to categorise things. There is no hard border between "alive" and "not alive"; rather, there is a continuum. Life can be roughly defined as the ability of entities to interact with the environment with the goal of self-replication - but there is no moment at which you can say, "A second ago this entity was not alive, but now it is". 
Why am I alive and dirt is not? Because of how we defined this term. I consist of the same molecules and am the subject to the same forces as dirt - however, the arrangement of those molecules leads to those forces acting in a way making me alive. One day I will die and no longer be alive.
Dirt also may evolve eventually into a living being. Just give it enough time, and it is likely that some parts of it will.

Something becoming alive does not require any randomness. It is pure chaos theory: the simplest initial conditions eventually lead to very sophisticated outcomes.
Have you heard of Conway's Game of Life? It is a perfect illustration of that principle. You can take a pencil and brush it through a bunch of cells, then let the game run - and in a thousand iterations, there will be an entire new Universe on the field, with undescribable complexity.

What do you mean by "the Universe pre-Big Bang"? As far as we know, there is no such thing, as the Big Bang is what gave birth to the Universe in the first place.

AndreiBatar

@WinstonC
The process of abiogenesis is not fully understood but we know something. The first life forms were very simple. They were RNA based, had a membarane, easy to form, metabolize, harder to form, and replicate, easy to form. Check the experiments resulting in aminoacids.

jesusisGod777

@MayCaesar

Apparently you don't understand.

You're equivocating that all the matter in the universe before the big bang was a mineral rocks. And that if a ROCK explodes the ratio of matter it contains can create a universe.

You know what your saying is bullcrap.

Evolution never happened is never going to happen and makes  about 0ⁿ to the retard power sense.

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

@MayCaesar

Just so you understand.

When scientists say "all matter in the universe" specifically talking about matter pre-big bang retarded theory, they are not talking about matter that is different or unique.

They are simply talking about matter, inorganic non-living non-functional, zero activity, dead matter.

Rocks have matter

Trees have matter.

They suggest that matter is the base foundation for all life when a ROCK exploded into a universe.

I can't even talk about SCIENCE to people who say science knows.

You all are a laughing stock.

jesusisGod777

@AndreiBatar

First of all ambiogensis is a theory it's not based on an understanding at all.

If you suggest you lack knowledge concerning something you know you sound like a retard.

Apparently the facts haven't caught up with the discovery?

All of you, you're logic is so screwed up you truly have zero idea about how retarted you are.

You can not KNOW before you KNOW.

Just STFU.

jesusisGod777

@MayCaesar

And just in case you say something retarted like plutonium 248 or something else exploded in the universe I want you to look up nuclear fission or fission. Maybe you retards would understand then why I'm saying without gravity nuclear explosions never occur.

Half of you don't even understand why I'm saying it.

However, I'm not debating this topic about the big bang theory. It's false it never happened it makes zero sense because all of know reality contradicts it as even possible.

You can fairy tale land away in a quantum physics classroom but really it comes down to how much and imagination full retard has as an effect.

jesusisGod777

@MayCaesar

Something that lacks existence can not effect the existence it lacks.

Something can be it's own cause and effect as cause is based on events that are charecterized by something's existence.

To suggest that something exists so that it can cause it's own existence is fallacy as you already assume it must first exist in order to be a cause or be able to create an effect.

That which does not exist has no potential to effect it's own existence as lacking existence effects the possibility to exist lacking a cause.

The chicken and the egg is an incomplete process as both need an external cause.

If an egg exists only it can only produce a chicken.

If a chicken existed only it could only produce an egg.

Either way you insinuate that something must first exist.

God's existence is natural.

Something's own existence, that must come into existence is not natural as it suggests that something that did not exist must have a cause which it can not be it's own.

The entire reason is because you can not equally lack existence and immediately exist as a result of lacking existence.

Again this is a quantum physics argument where  you wanquantum wheneverphysics tcan bypass all physical reality and all physical laws just for a moment to imagine what's impossible as a reason to justify a THEORY, where the theory that is assumed outside of any rational conclusion, is a theory because it makes ZERO SENSE and no reality supports the conclusion as to how it's even possible.

When you stump yourself because your reasonings unsound USUALLY MOST PEOPLE realize what they're THINKING about isn't real and they USUALLY say you know what, God MUST exist.

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

Everyone does additionally realize that all matter must be inorganic before it is organic.

Therefore anything that came into existence would be inorganic.

Explain to me how what does not exist

1. Causes an explosion
2. Causes an explosion as something inorganic itself.

You all haven't considered something else.

Net forces that are blanced never explode.

So either all net forces that we're not into existence would have to be I'm blanced to cause an explosion and if they are IMBALANCED they would have created a black hole from which

1. No light or matter could have escaped!


the Sun doesn't explodebecause its forces are balanced. It also won'texplode in the future because the mass of theSun is not enough to trigger a supernova.

So applying a degree of logic

How does that which does not exist come into existence as an explosion only to explode into matter that is inorganic?

Considering what any of you are insinuating it should be impossible for Mercury to exist as

Mercury is An iron planet is a type of planet that consists primarily of an iron-rich core with little or no mantle. Mercury is the largest celestial body of this type in the Solar System (as the other terrestrial planets are silicate planets), but largeriron-rich exoplanets may exist.

Iron cannot be fused into anything heavier because of the insane amounts of energy and force required to fuse iron atoms.

That means the force that generated the big bang explosion eliminates Mercury as a planet that actually exists.

Go grab a telescope because Mercury should have NEVER formed.

Not only that but if the explosion didn't generate enough force to fuse iron you have about a billion other problems.

The big bang theory is for people who don't know science enough to assume it's possible because of that bullcrap called quantum mechanics where any force that needs to exist to make something possible uniquely does but has never been observed.

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces. 

Angular momentum dictates the quantity of rotation of a body, which is the product of its moment of inertia and its angular velocity determines that gravity would have to have been an active force if the big bang occurred and that the universe would be flat.

So unless you start believing the earth is flat you can't believe the big bang theory.

Additionally we'd all be flat as a result.

Ever hear of the flatness problem?

When balanced forces act on an object at rest, the object will not move. ...Forces that cause a change in the motion of an object are unbalanced forces.

If your suggesting the big bang occurred as a result of unbalanced forces youre suggesting that all atoms that came into existence would have been effected by gravityw just to form.

You'd also suggest that the net force  on sthat actsbrought the universe into existence would have immediately ceased to exist just so that the atoms of matter wouldn't be split and cause explosion.

Second you'd be a moron to suggest that as the only way to cause an explosion is to split something's atom by introducing a neutron into an atomic structure that already has one electron protron and neutron.

So when you suggest the big bang happened the only way a neutron is added to an atomic stucture is if a gravitation force that is I'm blanced forces a neutron into the center of an atom.

So did GRAVITY exist before the big bang or not?

The only other options you have are supernova

Or some make beilieve explosion.

If what was in existence supernovaed BLACK HOLE.

If gravity didn't exist then some other force balanced out the net force of all matter determine an explosion would never occur.

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

Debra either you or my phone are correcting me when I type something.

Either way unless the net forces in the universe are controlled or directed at something or are under God's control these net forces would cancel each other out.

Gravity would effect the mass of an object.

The imblances forces would effect gravity.

Etc, no universe.

Now if your suggesting gravity could be directed while other net forces are applied then that would make sense.

Such would require God's existence.

So you either assert fallaciously that when everything came into existence all net forces came into existence immediately causing the dessteuction of all life and planets as each would have to fill the exact same space at the exact same time acting on all of the matter in the universe or that parts of the universe were created and additions added .

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

If you insinuate I'm blanced net forces are acting on balanced net forces in the cause of atoms, explain to me using quantum physics how physic objects that are blanced and motionless allow for objects that are Imbalance to move through them?

Jesus is Lord.

jesusisGod777

@MayCaesar

And so you're aware you need fissile material to cause a nuclear explosion.

I dare you to argue that the inorganic matter that exploded to assert the big band was fissile.

Jesus is Lord.

MayCaesar

@jesusisGod777

I cannot reasonably respond to so many points, but most of them seem to derive from a complete misunderstanding of what the Big Bang is.

It does not make sense to talk about anything "before the Big Bang". The Big Bang is not a bunch of matter suddenly exploding; it is a completely different thing, and it is only portrayed as an explosion for convenience, so it is easier to understand it conceptually.

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter; the Big Bang is what created the expanding Universe, with all the matter and energy in it. There was no substance that "exploded"; it is a purely analogy-based concept.

It is perfectly fine to criticise the Big Bang theory, even from the religious standpoint. But if you want to criticise it in a reasonable matter, you should, at least, understand what the theory states.

Note finally that the very term "big bang" was originally a parody, made by a physicist who did not take it seriously (and at the time it was perfectly justified, given how little evidence we had of this). It is a shame that this term stuck, as it makes it easy to completely misunderstand the theory.

WinstonC

@MayCaesar @AndreiBatar The way I see it, abiogenesis may explain some (though not all) of the how, rather than the why. Why would non living amino acids become living amino acids? It makes me think of the emergence of consciousness because something completely unlike that which preceded it is produced. Life, after all, does not behave at all like non life. This opens up a few interesting questions. Is consciousness and life inherently linked? Is all matter alive and/or conscious and we simply don't know it?

Or, on the other hand, does matter undergo revolutionary transformations to produce things radically unlike that which preceded it? (first non life, then non conscious life, then life). If so, then will conscious life undergo another comparably radical transformation in the future?

ethang5

@WinstonC

>I've recently been thinking about how bizarre it is that life should emerge out of non life.

Most honest people who think about this come to a similar conclusion.

>It makes no sense to me why energy and matter would fuse in the strangest of ways to make something that self-animates.

It makes no sense period.

>Moreover, such things appear to have a "will", be it free or completely predetermined.

>Why do you think that life would emerge from non life?

Well, it didn't, but I will tell you why otherwise intelligent people think that life emerged from non-life.

They dislike the only alternative.

That is all. They have no scientific reasons, no scientific evidence. They simply dislike the alternative.

Since science began, ALL scientific observation and experimentation have concluded that life comes only from life.

I did not say all scientific observation and experimentation have been inconclusive, I said every single one has confirmed that life comes only from life.

So called men of science will claim that there is evidence for abiogenesis and refer to the Miller-Urey experiments, but they are either poorly informed, or lying.

Miller-Urey was a failure based on what it was supposed to establish, and in fact confirmed that life never comes from non-life.

Every single subsequent variation of the Miller-Urey experiment, (and there have been many) has only validated the same thing, namely, that life comes only from life.

Ask a person who believes in abiogenesis for any scientific  evidence supporting it and he will tell you that amino acids can form complex organic molecules spontaneously in nature.

But how is that evidence of life from non-life? Logs form naturally in nature, but are we to accept that as evidence log cabins spring up spontaneously?

It is an amazing thing that so many scientists prefer to cling to the theory that not only has no scientific evidence, but has been consistently contradicted by all scientific observation and experimentation since time began.

This quote explains the situation perfectly...

because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools, ......And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

The alternative to abiogenesis is God, and they simply do not want to retain God in their knowledge, so they cling to an irrational theory with zero scientific evidence.

Many years from now, people will wonder how the world was able to sustain belief in such anti-scientific nonsense for so long.

MayCaesar

@WinstonC

Questions of "why" in science are problematic, as Feynman brilliantly explained here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R95fQQqSgbQ 

We assume that everything has a cause, but every cause, in turn, also has a cause, and this is an infinite loop. We can explain most physical processes by agreeing on certain assumptions and deriving the consequences, but those assumptions fundamentally are somewhat arbitrary. Physics is not mathematics, where we have a set of hard axioms from which everything else is derived. In physics, axioms don't exist, in that everything is based on something preceding it.

A lot of things we see around us have the origin very contrary to what one would assume intuitively. When looking at the combustion engine, one wouldn't see the point of it - however, when connected to a vehicle, it suddenly produces a very useful effect. Something like this happens here as well: inanimate matter comes together seemingly in a random way, and then produces something animate. Strange however it might seem, analyzing the internal processes allows us to connect the not so obvious dots into a more or less plausible picture.

As far as consciousness goes, this is something that so far has eluded physics. It is possible that consciousness is a matter of perspective and does not have an explanation in physics at all. At best, we can say that consciousness exists ("I think, therefore I am"), but what its origin is, or even what it is, we do not really know.


@ethang5 ;

It is a false dichotomy: there are more possibilities than just "Life may come from non-life" and "God has created all life". There are many other possibilities: life has always existed on its own without any gods; god exists, but does not interfere in much, and life still can come from non-life; god himself has come from non-life at some point; and so on and so on.

The problem is, none of those possibilities are supported by evidence. For example, we know well that life as we know it could not exist on Earth 4 billion years ago. So it had to start somewhere in between then and now. Where and when? There are many options, and "God created life" is just one of them, again, lacking any evidence supporting it.

If you are aware of experiments demonstrating God's existence, please let me know. If you are not, then you are an intellectually dishonest person, choosing fairytales over rigorous scientific method and claiming that you choose the other way around.

ethang5

@MayCaesar

>It is a false dichotomy: there are more possibilities than just "Life may come from non-life" and "God has created all life". There are many other possibilities: life has always existed on its own without any gods;

Sorry, I thought it was implicit that I meant logical possibilities. We have established that the universe was not always in its current form and at one time could not have sustained life.

>god exists, but does not interfere in much, and life still can come from non-life;

And one could theorize that the tooth fairy started life, valid possibilities need to make scientific sense. There is absolutely no evidence for life from non-life. Not a sliver.

>god himself has come from non-life at some point; and so on and so on.

This is not an alternative theory, but the same old abiogenesis. There are only 2 alternatives, all theories fall into one of those 2.

>The problem is, none of those possibilities are supported by evidence.

Quite untrue. Life only from life is and has been supported by all evidence to date.

>For example, we know well that life as we know it could not exist on Earth 4 billion years ago. So it had to start somewhere in between then and now. Where and when?

That is a different question than we are discussing. Since we know that life comes only from life, and we know that life could not have been on earth at one time,

Then we know that there are only 2 options. Life started here spontaneously, or life here came from life from elsewhere.

>here are many options, and "God created life" is just one of them, again, lacking any evidence supporting it.

My argument is NOT that God created life, though that is what atheists lock onto.

My argument is that abiogenesis is nonsense lacking any scientific evidence whatsoever. So the question implied in the OP is, "why do some scientists believe in a theory lacking any scientific evidence?

My argument does not need God. I evoked God only to explain why so called men of science cling to an irrational theory that has no supporting evidence. They are avoiding god.

Every single scientific observation and experimentation from the dawn of time has supported the idea that life comes only from life. This is an indisputable fact. To say now that there is no evidence for life only from life is indefensible,

So what does the atheist do? He tries to change the argument from " life comes only from life" to "God created all life". And then focus on the metaphysical God rather than on on the boatloads of evidence supporting the idea that life comes only from life. Case i n point directly below.

>If you are aware of experiments demonstrating God's existence, please let me know.

I am not advocating God's existence, so why would I be interested in letting you know? My arguments are 1. That life from non-life is anti-science nonsense that even you have admitted has no evidence.

And 2. All scientific evidence to date confirms that life comes only from life.

Is God mentioned in either of my 2 points? Is God even needed to arrive at either of those 2 points? I'm talking science, you want to talk religion.

>If you are not, then you are an intellectually dishonest person, choosing fairytales over rigorous scientific method and claiming that you choose the other way around.

Nonsense. All the rigorous scientific methodology supports my position. You have absolutely no scientific reason to believe abiogenesis. None.

It would be bad enough if science was neutral on the question of abiogenesis. But it isn't. Science contradicts it.

There is no other reason why so many ignore the theory that is supported by all the science to date, in favor of a theory that has no support whatsoever.

They believe, and fear, that the  scientific evidence points to God, so they run the other way, into the arms of a bankrupt theory.

Which is why you're now asking me for evidence of God, when God does not factor into my argument at all. He factors into yours.

I can debate this subject and prove my points without reference to any god. I have science.

WinstonC

@MayCaesar "Something like this happens here as well: inanimate matter comes together seemingly in a random way, and then produces something animate."

See herein lies the issue, such an explanation would appear to mean that there is no real distinction between life and non-life, except in their complexity. This may well be the case, and all matter may in some way be alive and possibly even conscious too. It seems to me that there are more questions than answers at this point in time.