What is the Difference?
Devils Advocaat
cannot become living matter".
So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
spintronic
Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
"non-living matter becoming living matter"?
Thought not.
JM200...@hotmail.com
It's too complicated and ye evolutionists have never created life from
scratch.
JM
spintronic
wrote:
> On Oct 10, 12:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > cannot become living matter".
>
> > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> It's too complicated
Nice.
> and ye evolutionists have never created life from
> scratch.
Thats not entirely true. Depending upon your definition of
"from scratch".
There are two teams working on creating "synthetic life".
1) A Reverse engineering aproach.
2) A bottom up approach.
1) Basically synthesises a small genome, (like digitally
copying the bits on a CD) and inserts into a small empty
cell.
2) Synthesises the whole lot.
*Both* are "copying" life. Not creating life.
No 1, will be out this year.
No 2, will be a few more years.
Just in time to fully realise it can't happen by chance.
spintronic
> and ye evolutionists have never created life from
> scratch.
Oh, and don't be suprised.
"If they put their minds to it, they will accomplish anything".
Ernest Major
<603d3c9d-32c1-48c0...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
What about the classic experiment demonstrate that the mass added to a
plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water, and not
from the soil?
There are large fluxes of matter between the biosphere and the rest of
the earth.
It's possible that such creationists mean "non-living matter
cannot become living matter *except by the action of preexisting living
matter*", but that's not what they write, and considering the
incoherence often displayed by creationists assuming that would not be
safe. It's also not consistent with the combination of Big Bang
cosmology and the observed existence of life.
>
>Thought not.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Gregory A Greenman
It happens billions of times every day. I ate a salad for dinner.
The salad had lettuce (which is dead matter), cheese (also dead
matter), olives (also also dead matter), turkey meat (more dead
matter), onions (even more dead matter) and salad dressing (yet
more dead matter). Some of that dead matter will become part of me
and will become living matter.
> Thought not.
I could tell that you thought not.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Ye Old One
Oh look! McLiar is back playing the fool again.
Now McMoron, about these long outstanding matters that require your
attention.
McClueless Video Challenge - Month 9 and still counting.
McPiltdown Deathmarch - Month 28 and still 1,997,000 school textbooks
to account for.
Censorship by talk.origins and/or Google - several months after your
first claims and still not one shred of evidence.
We are ALL waiting for you McClueless. These matters are NOT going to
go away.
--
Bob.
Devils Advocaat
That is a typical creationist dodge of answering one question with
another.
The claim that "non-living matter cannot become living matter" is one
made by creationists and the onus is on those that make the claim to
present supporting evidence.
Now you want an example of non-living matter becoming living matter,
plants do it all the time, taking in non-living carbon dioxide, non-
living water and non-living minerals in order for metabolism, growth
and reproduction to occur.
Perhaps you can offer evidence to support the creationist contention
Devils Advocaat
What is "too complicated"? The reason creationists believe this claim
to be true, or the explanation that they are so reluctant to offer?
And what grade of scratch are you referring to?
Ernest Major
<c7fb9fb8-c8ab-498d...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
from non-living matter cannot become living matter to non-living matter
*can* become living matter in under 30 minutes.
--
alias Ernest Major
TomS
<d646c71c-7543-4de6...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
JM...@HOTMAIL.COM stated..."
So, you are saying that life is too complicated to be designed?
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ron O
You don't think too deeply if you use bogus arguments like this. Just
turn it around and use it on your own alternative. This is just a
variant of the god of the gaps argument. It is a really bogus
argument coming from your side of the argument. Science can
demonstrate that the gaps are getting smaller, and you are stuck with
the short end of the stick. You can't name a single gap argument
where your alternative was found to be the option that filled that
gap. 100% failure of your option. Not a single success in the entire
history of science.
Not only that, but your simple quote of "non-living matter becoming
living matter" isn't even true. Plants take water and carbon dioxide
and confert it into living matter all the time. You could be fed a
synthetic diet and convert it into living matter. There was a time
when a lot of people thought that there was something special about
organic molcules and that only living things could produce them, but
then urea was produced in the lab. The fact is that there isn't a
single thermodynamically impossible chemical reaction that life forms
do. You can put glucose and phosphate in a beaker of water and you
will get an equilibrium amount of glucose phosphate. Lifeforms have
developed enzymes that will speed up these reactions, but they can't
make something that can't naturally form. Enzymes work by
facilitating chemical reactions.
Why do you think that only boneheads like McNameless support your
efforts? Why do you think that the creationist con artists that sold
the teach ID scam are running the bait and switch on anyone stupid
enough to have believed them? Why did they start running the bait and
switch years before they lost in court?
If there were valid scientific arguments we would have seen them by
now. There are none. The obfuscation creationist scam is just that,
an obfuscation scam. You can't get very far with it and it is only
useful in fooling the ignorant.
Have you been able to verify a single creationist argument to be valid
and mean what you thought? What is it if you have found one? Give us
the argument in your own words and the take home message from the
argument, produce a reference so that we can see if you have
misinterpreted it, and be educated. You have probably found that
there may be a grain of truth in some creationist arguments, but the
grain doesn't mean what they want it to mean and they have to
misrepresent reality to make it sound like a reasonable argument. Can
you name a creationist argument that doesn't do this besides the ones
that are outright lies?
Ron Okimoto
Rolf
"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e1fbea03-eaa3-4a1d...@v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> cannot become living matter".
>
> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
I've got to ask: Just WHAT is "living matter"?
I do not know anything about living matter. Do you?
Matter is matter regardless. Take a close look at life; at the bottom you
find nothing but chemistry and physics. Just another case of "the whole is
more than the sum of its parts."
Take a computer, mostly silicon. So why don't the rocks all around us
compute? Take a close look at a computer CPU chip. It is not doing any
computation; no boolean algebra or binary arithmetic, all you find is
electrons and holes moving around in silicon. It all depends on the
organization. I think it is about time for people to really begin to
appreciate the power of emergence.
Rolf
"JM...@HOTMAIL.COM" <JM200...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d646c71c-7543-4de6...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
But ye creationists have?
>JM
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
I am well aware of this, but the point of my opening post is to get
the creationists to explain why they believe "non-living matter cannot
become living matter".
Robert Carnegie
I was going to say "breakfast". But this is a straw-man argument by
"evolutionists". You present a list of formerly-living matter, but
even the incorporation of inert matter such as salt into the human
corpus is not, I think, what the creationist doubts. Rather, it is
the question of non-living matter naturally producing new life: a
spontaneous origin on, say, a brand new planet. Although the
"evolutionist" does not depend on that; he is content to see a single
germ of life landing on his planet from outer space. That does merely
push the problem elsewhere, into such fields as panspermia, but it
ceases to be his problem. He can leave the space part out of his own
reasoning.
A more economical hypothesis is that a simple form of life arose
naturally, but then was completely replaced by later developments -
DNA seems like one of those.
Max
I make it happen all the time when I eat.
Will you ever admit any of your mistakes?
Thought not.
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-10-10, Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> cannot become living matter".
Of course there isn't any distinction between these two. Carbon isn't
a different kind of matter when it is found in DNA than inside graphite
or diamond. The kinds of chemical bonds that are formed aren't any
different.
> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
I'm betting not. Some will probably answer though.
Markk
Mark VandeWettering
Tying your own shoelaces is probably too complicated for you, so perhaps
you aren't the best to judge.
In any case, you are equivocating. The very terms "non-living matter"
and "living matter" are absurd. The carbon that is part of your skin isn't
"alive" anymore than the carbon that is in a lead pencil is.
Mark
> JM
Mark VandeWettering
Van Helmont did this centuries ago.
Mark
>
> Thought not.
>
(M)-adman
> In message
> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>
>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>
>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
> What about the classic experiment demonstrate that the mass added to a
> plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water, and not
> from the soil?
>
> There are large fluxes of matter between the biosphere and the rest of
> the earth.
>
> It's possible that such creationists mean "non-living matter
> cannot become living matter *except by the action of preexisting
> living matter*",
The question had nothing to do with pre-existing living matter.
The addition of Pre-existing living matter would not be an exception, but a
different condition added to the test.
>but that's not what they write, and considering the
> incoherence often displayed by creationists assuming that would not be
> safe. It's also not consistent with the combination of Big Bang
> cosmology and the observed existence of life.
>>
>> Thought not.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Robert Carnegie
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>
> > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > cannot become living matter".
>
> Of course there isn't any distinction between these two. Carbon isn't
> a different kind of matter when it is found in DNA than inside graphite
> or diamond. The kinds of chemical bonds that are formed aren't any
> different.
I propose that is not a "fact" but an assumption. That both graphite
and living and dead tissue contain carbon atoms merely following the
mathematical "laws" of chemistry that emerge from the physics of an
"atom", and that a living being is just a collection of atoms. I do
believe that myself, but we should be careful about the grounds - or
the lack of them - for making positive statements such as that.
Ouroboros_Rex
> Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message
>> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
>>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>>
>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>
>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>
>> What about the classic experiment demonstrate that the mass added to
>> a plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water, and
>> not from the soil?
>>
>> There are large fluxes of matter between the biosphere and the rest
>> of the earth.
>>
>> It's possible that such creationists mean "non-living matter
>> cannot become living matter *except by the action of preexisting
>> living matter*",
>
> The question had nothing to do with pre-existing living matter.
And since it's a poorly designed question, leaves that inclusion as valid.
Ernest Major
<gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message
>> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
>>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>>
>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>
>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>
>> What about the classic experiment demonstrate that the mass added to a
>> plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water, and not
>> from the soil?
>>
>> There are large fluxes of matter between the biosphere and the rest of
>> the earth.
>>
>> It's possible that such creationists mean "non-living matter
>> cannot become living matter *except by the action of preexisting
>> living matter*",
>
>The question had nothing to do with pre-existing living matter.
>The addition of Pre-existing living matter would not be an exception, but a
>different condition added to the test.
>
sensible interpretation of the claim, could you explain what
creationists mean when they say that "non-living matter cannot become
living matter".
>
>>but that's not what they write, and considering the
>> incoherence often displayed by creationists assuming that would not be
>> safe. It's also not consistent with the combination of Big Bang
>> cosmology and the observed existence of life.
>>>
>>> Thought not.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Bill
> In message
> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0-988e-15af577a8...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> >> cannot become living matter".
>
> >> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> >Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> >"non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
> What about the classic experiment demonstrate that the mass added to a
> plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water, and not
> from the soil?
Who's arguing with that?
All you show here is that life comes from life.
Nice one.
(M)-adman
> On 10 Oct, 09:46, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>> cannot become living matter".
>>
>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>
>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>
>> Thought not.
>
> That is a typical creationist dodge of answering one question with
> another.
He was asking an rhetorical question to make a point. There is a difference.
>
> The claim that "non-living matter cannot become living matter" is one
> made by creationists and the onus is on those that make the claim to
> present supporting evidence.
>
> Now you want an example of non-living matter becoming living matter,
> plants do it all the time, taking in non-living carbon dioxide, non-
> living water and non-living minerals in order for metabolism, growth
> and reproduction to occur.
It sounds to me like you have just described plant food.
The mixing of non-living carbon dioxide, non-living water and non-living
minerals to an existing living plant gives you energy for that plant. As you
said yourself, the result was "metabolism".
> Perhaps you can offer evidence to support the creationist contention
> that non-living matter cannot become living matter.
DA, this post is by far the largest rationalization I have read to date. It
frightening me to even remotely consider some on these NG's are actually
scientists when I read such rationalizations. And here is why. Adding
non-living matter to something already alive is not the same as taking
assorted non-living matter and having them start life on their own. It is
elementary; or should I say rudimentary.
Try mixing your plant food together with some dirt. See if you get a living
plant. Which, btw, was the point of spintronic's rhetorical question.
Now, to answer your above inquiry:
Can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
AFAIK There are two general forms of matter. One is non-living, the other is
living. To-date, it cannot be explained scientifically why otherwise
non-living matter can organize itself into living matter.(much less
intelligent living matter)
But it can be explained with mankind's plethora of ancient texts and
historical tradition.
HTH
(M)-adman
You are not creating life *FOOL*. You are making energy *FOR* life.
I hope you are not a scientist.
(M)-adman
In your opinion, what gives elements such as carbon the ability to perform
the tasks that DNA does?
(M)-adman
You are trying to redefine life Mark.
>
>> JM
Bill
> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, you just can't read.
Bill
> On 10 Oct, 09:46, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > > cannot become living matter".
>
> > > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> > Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> > "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
> > Thought not.
>
> That is a typical creationist dodge of answering one question with
> another.
>
> The claim that "non-living matter cannot become living matter" is one
> made by creationists and the onus is on those that make the claim to
> present supporting evidence.
No, you *claim* that "non-living matter, can *spontaniously* become
living-matter".
The onus is upon you.
> Now you want an example of non-living matter becoming living matter,
> plants do it all the time,
Err, Err.
Your original question pertained to matter spontaniously becoming
living.
I have yet to meet anyone who denies that matter *does not* become
living
when assimilated by lining-matter.
You meant abiogenesis and you know it.
All you are proving here is that life comes from life.
Or like I originally said. You could show me how matter
*spontainiously - on its own - without preexisting life*
becomes living.
Thought not!
> Perhaps you can offer evidence to support the creationist contention
> that non-living matter cannot become living matter.
Sure, when you back up your claim with evidence.
Mark VandeWettering
> Max wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 4:46 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>
>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>
>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>>
>>> Thought not.
>>
>> I make it happen all the time when I eat.
>>
>> Will you ever admit any of your mistakes?
>>
>> Thought not.
>
> You are not creating life *FOOL*. You are making energy *FOR* life.
Nonsense. The chemical elements in food are integrated into your cells.
> I hope you are not a scientist.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> On Oct 10, 3:37 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2008-10-10, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>> > cannot become living matter".
>>
>> Of course there isn't any distinction between these two. Carbon isn't
>> a different kind of matter when it is found in DNA than inside graphite
>> or diamond. The kinds of chemical bonds that are formed aren't any
>> different.
>
> I propose that is not a "fact" but an assumption.
The very fact that you have to quote "fact" implies that you are using
a personal definition for fact. I'm not interested in your personal
definitions. That the carbon in your cells is no different than the
carbon in graphite isn't an assumption: it is a conclusion drawn from
examining the evidence.
> That both graphite and living and dead tissue contain carbon atoms
> merely following the mathematical "laws" of chemistry that emerge from
> the physics of an "atom", and that a living being is just a collection
> of atoms. I do believe that myself, but we should be careful about
> the grounds - or the lack of them - for making positive statements
> such as that.
The only reasons for rejecting this claim are perverse.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
You should reexamine the claim more closely. Van Helmont's experiment
grew a tree for five years, adding only water to a carefully weighed
amount of soil. In the end, he had a tree which weighed 164 lbs (if
memory serves), but the total mass of the soil had only been reduced by
some two ounces. The conclusion is that the vast majority of the mass
of the plant (unquestionably "living matter", if the term is to have any
meaning at all) came purely from "non-living matter" (water, air, and a
small amount of matter from the soil). In this sense, all normal growth
processes convert "non-living matter" into "living matter".
Mark
Bill
> On Oct 10, 3:46 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > > cannot become living matter".
>
> > > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> > Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> > "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
> > Thought not.
>
> You don't think too deeply if you use bogus arguments like this.
Lets use occam's razor.
Of all life that has ever lived here on earth. 3.5+ billion years
worth.
That is trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions... of
enteties
that fall into the group of *living-matter*.
Now of *all* those enteties. You can not provide me with just *1*
example
of an "entity" that (on it's own) spontaniously went from "non-living"
to
"living" without, pre-existing life.
Occam, Demands "life comes from life".
> Just turn it around and use it on your own alternative. This is just a
> variant of the god of the gaps argument. It is a really bogus
> argument coming from your side of the argument. Science can
> demonstrate that the gaps are getting smaller, and you are stuck with
> the short end of the stick.
Not at all. Science is finding that *under a microscope*, what were
thought
of as "small gaps" are actually *great chasms*.
You have the shitty end.
When the chasms are full you can pass it to me.
> You can't name a single gap argument where your alternative was found
> to be the option that filled that gap. 100% failure of your option.
> Not a single success in the entire history of science.
Well thats a stupid argument.
1) There are planty of gaps evolution does not fill.
2) It's easy to say "goddidit".
> Not only that, but your simple quote of "non-living matter becoming
> living matter" isn't even true. Plants....
Context affects meaning.
Mark VandeWettering
You are arguing against a claim which was not made. The creationist claims
that "living matter" can't be created from "non-living matter". But plants
(and, indeed any living thing) do precisely this, all the time as part of
their normal growth processes.
> Now, to answer your above inquiry:
> Can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> AFAIK There are two general forms of matter. One is non-living, the other is
> living. To-date, it cannot be explained scientifically why otherwise
> non-living matter can organize itself into living matter.(much less
> intelligent living matter)
>
> But it can be explained with mankind's plethora of ancient texts and
> historical tradition.
What piffle.
Mark
>
>
> HTH
Bill
When I make one.
You are "Boons".
CONTEXT OF ORIGINAL QUESTION:
> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> cannot become living matter
Let spin, do what the *Boons* in here have done. (Twist the context)
Please "Devils Advocate". Cite All the references where creationists
say
*matter cannot be converted into living matter*!
Oh, what do you know. They don't say such a stupid thing.
And that was not what he meant!
He meant; "Why do creationists believe that matter cannot
spontaniously
become living-matter".
My Reply was; (IN THAT CONTEXT)
> first cite an actual example or experiment of
> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
And what do you know. After all those BOON -Heads tossin off.
There isn't one NOT ONE. ZIP, NADA, 0, NOTHIN, VACUUM, NOTHINGNESS.
TOTAL VOID.
ZERO examples of the *spontanious"* generation of life from NON-LIVING
matter.
Or you could CITE.
Thought NOT!
Bill
>
> > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > cannot become living matter".
First, (In the context of the BOONS in here) Could you cite Just one
example of a (GROUP) of creationist who beleive such a stupid thing?
(Ergo, What this boon just said)
> > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
What that "non-living-matter does not become living when ingested by
living-matter?
> I'm betting not.
Why would they. It's a stupid fucking argument,
even for retards like yourself.
Bill
> could you explain what creationists mean when they say that
> "non-living matter cannot become living matter".
I have yet to meet one that made such a claim.
I have met loads who say that non-living matter cannot
*SPONTANIOUSLY*
become living-matter. (WITHOUT pre-existing life)
Now, smart ass.
You can now show all the creationists here on Talk Origin.
And All the evolutionists for that matter.
An experiment that took non-living-matter and generated living-matter
*without* PRE-EXISTING life.
THOUGHT NOT!
<SNIP> BS
Bill
> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 10:37 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0-988e-15af577a8...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >> >On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> >> >> cannot become living matter".
>
> >> >> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> >> >Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> >> >"non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
> >> What about the classic experiment demonstrate that the mass added to a
> >> plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water, and not
> >> from the soil?
>
> > Who's arguing with that?
>
> > All you show here is that life comes from life.
>
> > Nice one.
>
> You should reexamine the claim more closely.
YOU SHOULD FUCKING READ MORE CLEARLY.
NOONE IS SAYING NON_LIVING MATTER CANNOT BECOME LIVING MATTER!
Gregory A Greenman
> > spintronic wrote:
> > > > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > > > cannot become living matter".
> >
> > > > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
> >
> > > Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> > > "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
> >
> > It happens billions of times every day. I ate a salad for dinner.
> > The salad had lettuce (which is dead matter), cheese (also dead
> > matter), olives (also also dead matter), turkey meat (more dead
> > matter), onions (even more dead matter) and salad dressing (yet
> > more dead matter). Some of that dead matter will become part of me
> > and will become living matter.
> >
> > > Thought not.
> >
> > I could tell that you thought not.
>
> I was going to say "breakfast". But this is a straw-man argument by
> "evolutionists".
Nonsense. I addressed exactly what he asked about.
> You present a list of formerly-living matter, but
> even the incorporation of inert matter such as salt into the human
> corpus is not, I think, what the creationist doubts. Rather, it is
> the question of non-living matter naturally producing new life: a
> spontaneous origin on, say, a brand new planet.
Perhaps, but if that's what he meant, then that's what he should
have asked about. I suspect that most creationists thinking goes no
deeper than "dead matter cannot become living matter, therefore
evolution is false". I'm showing that their premise is wrong. Maybe
that will spur them to think a little deeper.
<snip>
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
(M)-adman
No offence but it is not sensible IMHO because photosynthesis gives the
plant energy, or food so to speak. Photosynthesis does not add additional
mass to the plant, it allows the plant to manfacture it's own mass. Just
because i eat oats for breakfast does not mean i added oats to my cell
structure or DNA.
But to answer your question, There is no standard model for the origin of
life, so defining living and non living matter cannot really get a
scientific defination yet. But from the laypersons defination, anything that
can reproduce and has a drive to survive could be considered living.
Anything that cannot reproduce and is not concerned over it's destruction
should not be considered living.
Science does not consider a virus living, i would assume because it needs a
host for reproduction. But the virus can reproduce and it's drive to survive
assists the virus invading the host
Anything that has an inate drive and desire to survive and reproduce, IMHO,
is considered living. This would include the virus because a virus shows
signs of a desire to reproduce and survive.
(M)-adman
This is nonsense.
The new living matter (or increase in weight) came from the USE of non
living matter as fuel. You still got life, making more life, from the non
living matter.
But here is the funny thing. Someone actually paid a salary to Van Helmont
to tell us this obvious lie.
Kermit
> On Oct 10, 11:14 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Oct, 09:46, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > > > cannot become living matter".
>
> > > > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> > > Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> > > "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
> > > Thought not.
>
> > That is a typical creationist dodge of answering one question with
> > another.
>
> > The claim that "non-living matter cannot become living matter" is one
> > made by creationists and the onus is on those that make the claim to
> > present supporting evidence.
>
> No, you *claim* that "non-living matter, can *spontaniously* become
> living-matter".
>
> The onus is upon you.
4.2 billion years ago there was no life on Earth. Now there is. Do you
deny it?
I am not familiar with the work being done in abiogenesis; feel free
to call them mere hypotheses at this point of you like. We have
several reasonable paths worked out, given what we know of the
conditions on Earth then and biochemistry.
I suppose you will say that it was not natural processes that brought
it about (I am assuming you will not argue that life has been here
since the beginning of time). I am willing to entertain the notion
that it was some supernatural process, if you would provide some
evidence for that, or a feasible mechanism and a testable model.
Otherwise, it is most parsimonious to assume that it will turn out to
be perfectly natural, as have all other natural events and processes
that we ahve so far figured out. None of them have been determined to
be supernatural yet.
Whether the first life appeared by a robot's design, fell from the sky
in a meteorite, or was poofed into existence by an invisible
supernatural entity, it's pretty clear that life evolved into our
current panoply of species via evolution.
>
> > Now you want an example of non-living matter becoming living matter,
> > plants do it all the time,
>
> Err, Err.
>
> Your original question pertained to matter spontaniously becoming
> living.
>
> I have yet to meet anyone who denies that matter *does not* become
> living
> when assimilated by lining-matter.
>
> You meant abiogenesis and you know it.
True, but it is indicative of the careless thinking of most
Creationists.
>
> All you are proving here is that life comes from life.
>
> Or like I originally said. You could show me how matter
> *spontainiously - on its own - without preexisting life*
> becomes living.
>
> Thought not!
Sometimes the answer is "We don't know yet."
That is not pronounced "God did it", by the way. Perhaps she did,
however. Have any evidence?
>
> > Perhaps you can offer evidence to support the creationist contention
> > that non-living matter cannot become living matter.
>
> Sure, when you back up your claim with evidence.
What claim - that life arose on Earth via natural processes? How else
- everything that we understand has happened naturally.
Kermit
(M)-adman
As fuel.
>
>> I hope you are not a scientist.
>
> Mark
--
(M)-adman
The non living matter did not establish the life of and the life in the
plant. Get it?
IOW, The plant is using the nonliving matter to facillitate life, even to
expand itself. The plant (or all life for that matter) did not organize
itself, by itself, into a living structure even though the life is made up
of non living matter and uses nonliving mater as fuel.
If i am wrong, please explain this creation of living matter from non-living
matter. We already know life will use non-living matter to continue life and
to expand it's life. We already know life is made up of non living matter.
>
>> Now, to answer your above inquiry:
>> Can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>
>> AFAIK There are two general forms of matter. One is non-living, the
>> other is living. To-date, it cannot be explained scientifically why
>> otherwise non-living matter can organize itself into living
>> matter.(much less intelligent living matter)
>>
>> But it can be explained with mankind's plethora of ancient texts and
>> historical tradition.
>
> What piffle.
What denial
(M)-adman
> On 10 Oct, 12:41, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e1fbea03-eaa3-4a1d...@v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>> cannot become living matter".
>>
>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>
>>
>> I do not know anything about living matter. Do you?
>>
>> Matter is matter regardless. Take a close look at life; at the
>> bottom you find nothing but chemistry and physics. Just another case
>> of "the whole is more than the sum of its parts."
>>
>> Take a computer, mostly silicon. So why don't the rocks all around us
>> compute? Take a close look at a computer CPU chip. It is not doing
>> any computation; no boolean algebra or binary arithmetic, all you
>> find is electrons and holes moving around in silicon. It all depends
>> on the organization. I think it is about time for people to really
>> begin to appreciate the power of emergence.
>
> I am well aware of this, but the point of my opening post is to get
> the creationists to explain why they believe "non-living matter cannot
> become living matter".
But you never offer your own opinion. Why is that DA?
Kermit
> On Oct 10, 12:20 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 3:46 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > > > cannot become living matter".
>
> > > > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> > > Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> > > "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
> > > Thought not.
>
> > You don't think too deeply if you use bogus arguments like this.
>
> Lets use occam's razor.
>
> Of all life that has ever lived here on earth. 3.5+ billion years
> worth.
> That is trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions... of
> enteties
> that fall into the group of *living-matter*.
>
> Now of *all* those enteties. You can not provide me with just *1*
> example
> of an "entity" that (on it's own) spontaniously went from "non-living"
> to
> "living" without, pre-existing life.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Are you *trying to sound silly? The process took
at least 200,000,000 years.
And the earliest life forms have long since been eaten or otherwise
broken down and redistributed.
It's obvious that it happened somehow. If you think it happened
supernaturally, please offer some evidence.
>
> Occam, Demands "life comes from life".
>
> > Just turn it around and use it on your own alternative. This is just a
> > variant of the god of the gaps argument. It is a really bogus
> > argument coming from your side of the argument. Science can
> > demonstrate that the gaps are getting smaller, and you are stuck with
> > the short end of the stick.
>
> Not at all. Science is finding that *under a microscope*, what were
> thought
> of as "small gaps" are actually *great chasms*.
Cites?
>
> You have the shitty end.
>
> When the chasms are full you can pass it to me.
<snort>
Ron would be able to understand it. What would you do with it?
>
> > You can't name a single gap argument where your alternative was found
> > to be the option that filled that gap. 100% failure of your option.
> > Not a single success in the entire history of science.
>
> Well thats a stupid argument.
>
Oh? Of all the things that God was responsible for in the past, it now
turns out that many have been demonstrated to be natural processes,
and the others are under investigation. Your god is not only a god of
the gaps, he's snarling and backing into a corner as we throw light on
the various subjects.
You have several options:
1. You can discard this notion of gods altogether, and simply take the
data as we accumulate them
2. You can ignore the evidence, and bury yourself in your little
country church house.
3. You can say that natural processes are how your favorite god does
things, and science is studying how God set up this universe.
Note that option three allows you to continue investigating the world
around us, *and pursuing a religious path.
> 1) There are planty of gaps evolution does not fill.
Yup. There's a lot more than there used to be. Do you know why?
> 2) It's easy to say "goddidit".
No he didn't.
It's easy to say that, too.
What did that accomplish?
>
> > Not only that, but your simple quote of "non-living matter becoming
> > living matter" isn't even true. Plants....
>
> Context affects meaning.
True.
Kermit
Ernest Major
take it that you would conclude that this demonstrates that life can
come from non-life.
--
alias Ernest Major
heekster
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>> cannot become living matter".
>>
>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
>Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>"non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
You eat only live food?
>Thought not.
Yes, you didn't.
Ouroboros_Rex
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On 10 Oct, 09:46, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>
>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>
>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>>
>>> Thought not.
>>
>> That is a typical creationist dodge of answering one question with
>> another.
>
> He was asking an rhetorical question to make a point. There is a
> difference.
That's a lie. You need to produce an actual answer.
>
>>
>> The claim that "non-living matter cannot become living matter" is one
>> made by creationists and the onus is on those that make the claim to
>> present supporting evidence.
>>
>> Now you want an example of non-living matter becoming living matter,
>> plants do it all the time, taking in non-living carbon dioxide, non-
>> living water and non-living minerals in order for metabolism, growth
>> and reproduction to occur.
>
> It sounds to me like you have just described plant food.
>
> The mixing of non-living carbon dioxide, non-living water and
> non-living minerals to an existing living plant gives you energy for
> that plant. As you said yourself, the result was "metabolism".
>
>> Perhaps you can offer evidence to support the creationist contention
>> that non-living matter cannot become living matter.
>
> DA, this post is by far the largest rationalization I have read to
> date. It frightening me to even remotely consider some on these NG's
> are actually scientists when I read such rationalizations. And here
> is why. Adding non-living matter to something already alive is not
> the same as taking assorted non-living matter and having them start
> life on their own. It is elementary; or should I say rudimentary.
Ah, but the claim was, "non-living matter can not become living matter."
Not all this goalpost moving crap.
Fact is, you can't show it's impossible either way. All you can do is
appeal to ignorance.
Ouroboros_Rex
> Max wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 4:46 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>
>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>
>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>>
>>> Thought not.
>>
>> I make it happen all the time when I eat.
>>
>> Will you ever admit any of your mistakes?
>>
>> Thought not.
>
> You are not creating life *FOOL*. You are making energy *FOR* life.
More goalpost moving crap. Deal with the original claim, please, or admit
you're stumped.
Devils Advocaat
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > <g...@hotmail.ed> writes
> >> Ernest Major wrote:
> >>> In message
> >>> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
So you reckon a virus has the "desire" to survive and reproduce, could
you explain how this is possible in something that is little more than
a nucleic acid inside a protein coat?
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^- Hide quoted text -
Robert Carnegie
> On 2008-10-10, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 3:37�pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
> >> On 2008-10-10, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> >> > cannot become living matter".
> >>
> >> Of course there isn't any distinction between these two. �Carbon isn't
> >> a different kind of matter when it is found in DNA than inside graphite
> >> or diamond. �The kinds of chemical bonds that are formed aren't any
> >> different.
> >
> > I propose that is not a "fact" but an assumption.
>
> The very fact that you have to quote "fact" implies that you are using
> a personal definition for fact. I'm not interested in your personal
> definitions. That the carbon in your cells is no different than the
> carbon in graphite isn't an assumption: it is a conclusion drawn from
> examining the evidence.
What I mean is that If we're talking about science, we aren't talking
about "fact". The scientific method doesn't deliver "fact". Of
course this is being quite picky but I think it's appropriate.
> > That both graphite and living and dead tissue contain carbon atoms
> > merely following the mathematical "laws" of chemistry that emerge from
> > the physics of an "atom", and that a living being is just a collection
> > of atoms. I do believe that myself, but we should be careful about
> > the grounds - or the lack of them - for making positive statements
> > such as that.
>
> The only reasons for rejecting this claim are perverse.
I think it's eccentric but not necessarily illegitimate. Which isn't
to say that it gives the right answers.
Robert Carnegie
Bill wrote:
> On Oct 10, 12:20 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 3:46 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > > > cannot become living matter".
> >
> > > > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
> >
> > > Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> > > "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
> >
> > > Thought not.
> >
> > You don't think too deeply if you use bogus arguments like this.
>
>
> Lets use occam's razor.
>
> Of all life that has ever lived here on earth. 3.5+ billion years
> worth.
> That is trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions... of
> enteties
> that fall into the group of *living-matter*.
>
>
> Now of *all* those enteties. You can not provide me with just *1*
> example
> of an "entity" that (on it's own) spontaniously went from "non-living"
> to
> "living" without, pre-existing life.
Well, most of them are completely unknown to us. Wouldn't you know
it, the First Living Thing happens to be one of those.
> Occam, Demands "life comes from life".
On the contrary, Occam would demand - at least prefer - that
hypotheses aren't multiplied more than a necessary minimum. If life
always comes from other life then you have an infinite series of
ancestors.
spintronic
> (M)-adman wrote:
> > He was asking an rhetorical question to make a point. There is a
> > difference.
>
> That's a lie.
No. he#s right I was. You lie, he didn't. I'm right your wrong.
Hes correct your a boon.
Robert Carnegie
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 10:38=A0am, Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below> wrote:
> > > spintronic wrote:
> > > > On Oct 10, 8:20=3DA0am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > > > > cannot become living matter".
> > >
> > > > > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
> > >
> > > > Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> > > > "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
> > >
> > > It happens billions of times every day. I ate a salad for dinner.
> > > The salad had lettuce (which is dead matter), cheese (also dead
> > > matter), olives (also also dead matter), turkey meat (more dead
> > > matter), onions (even more dead matter) and salad dressing (yet
> > > more dead matter). Some of that dead matter will become part of me
> > > and will become living matter.
> > >
> > > > Thought not.
> > >
> > > I could tell that you thought not.
> >
> > I was going to say "breakfast". But this is a straw-man argument by
> > "evolutionists".
>
> Nonsense. I addressed exactly what he asked about.
You did, but the thread starts with a statement "What a foolish thing
these creationists believe about the impossibility of a natural origin
of life" and it is, in fact, not a thing that creationists claim to
believe.
Spintronic seems to have mistaken a description that embraces
incorporation of lifeless matter into a living body, for one of
spontaneous abiogenesis.
Robert Carnegie
> 4.2 billion years ago there was no life on Earth. Now there is. Do you
> deny it?
Were you there?
> Whether the first life appeared by a robot's design, fell from the sky
> in a meteorite, or was poofed into existence by an invisible
> supernatural entity, it's pretty clear that life evolved into our
> current panoply of species via evolution.
It is, but we cannot rule out yet that the earliest life was the poof
of a supernatural entity, as you suggest. Or of a robot. (Wait,
where does your robot come into this?)
Mark Evans
> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > cannot become living matter".
>
> > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
Um, Genesis, which is not science but is very popular with
creationists. Or a whole bunch of other myths that are less valued by
Christian creationists. And you incorporate a lot of non-living
matter into your body where it becomes part of living matter you all
the time.
Mark Evans
Robert Carnegie
I do not know the basis for a creationist position that a virus is
alive. Is there such an opinion?
Robert Carnegie
The claim /was/ goalpost moving crap. I don't think that anyone
doubts that non-living matter is incorporated into living matter.
Look: if you eat "unclean" food then you yourself become "unclean".
Doesn't that mean that the bible says that non-living mattter is
incorporated into your body when you eat, and the uncleanness with it?
Someone will have to tell me what happens if you get something unclean
in your mouth but you spit it out - if a fly goes in there for
instaance, I expect. (Or is it unclean to eat flies? It can be quite
difficult not to.)
(M)-adman
It has DNA correct?
(M)-adman
That would depend on what was used to construct the virus and would assume
my personal defination of life is true.
Ernest Major
<cefe4e37-f82d-417f...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
creationists should take a position different from the rest of us as to
whether viruses are alive (I see it as a matter of definition, rather
than a matter of fact), but on second thoughts they might reject the
living nature of viruses for tactical reasons.
However M/adman appears to have taken (see above) the position that
viruses are alive. He also appears to be a creationist of some stripe.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
If Spincronic claims to be right then we can safely take it he has
lost the point.
--
Bob.
Frank J
> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> cannot become living matter".
>
> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
I see many too many replies to read them all, so forgive me if this
has been said already.
Biblical creationists are OK with non-living matter becoming living
matter, as long as it's dust, and not ooze, muck, or slime.
Ernest Major
<gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
>>> Science does not consider a virus living, i would assume because it
>>> needs a host for reproduction. But the virus can reproduce and it's
>>> drive to survive assists the virus invading the host
>>>
>>> Anything that has an inate drive and desire to survive and
>>> reproduce, IMHO, is considered living. This would include the virus
>>> because a virus shows signs of a desire to reproduce and survive.
>>
>> So you reckon a virus has the "desire" to survive and reproduce, could
>> you explain how this is possible in something that is little more than
>> a nucleic acid inside a protein coat?
>
>It has DNA correct?
As a matter of observation some viruses have DNA and others don't.
(Viruses have a variety of genetic materials - the five types observed
are double-stranded DNA, (positive-sense) single-stranded DNA,
double-stranded RNA, positive-sense single-stranded RNA and
negative-sense single stranded RNA.)
However, I don't see why you would refer to the presence of DNA as a
response to the question asked; it would seem to make more sense for you
to state that your use of the word "desire" in this context should be
taken no more literally than similar usages by biologists (such as
Dawkins' "Selfish Gene").
--
alias Ernest Major
Shane
Which just goes to show the validity of spinny's closing comment. One
wonders why they take so much pride in not thinking.
Frank J
> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> > cannot become living matter".
>
> > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
I guess you also doubt the Civil War because you weren't there to see
it happen.
Shane
Indeed we do, what we do not get is what that point has to do with
spinny's question, which was so poorly worded as to make your position
off topic and the current direct responses on topic. Why don't you take
spinny to task for his failings, instead of dumping on thiose who have
answered the question he asked?
> IOW, The plant is using the nonliving matter to facillitate life, even to
> expand itself. The plant (or all life for that matter) did not organize
> itself, by itself, into a living structure even though the life is made up
> of non living matter and uses nonliving mater as fuel.
>
> If i am wrong, please explain this creation of living matter from non-living
> matter. We already know life will use non-living matter to continue life and
> to expand it's life. We already know life is made up of non living matter.
>
>>
>>> Now, to answer your above inquiry:
>>> Can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>
>>> AFAIK There are two general forms of matter. One is non-living, the
>>> other is living. To-date, it cannot be explained scientifically why
>>> otherwise non-living matter can organize itself into living
>>> matter.(much less intelligent living matter)
An argument from ignorance is hardly compelling. Perhaps you should
increase your knowledge before pontificating.
>>> But it can be explained with mankind's plethora of ancient texts and
>>> historical tradition.
>>
>> What piffle.
>
> What denial
Er no, if you are trying to explain the origin of life using ancient
texts, please do feel free to name the text(s) that show the true
origin. And to avoid spinny's mistake of asking poorly worded questions
I don't mean Genesis 1 & 2 or something similar for that either kills
your argument oor fails to support it.
If you consider God not alive, then it kills your argument for life came
from non-life.
If you consider god alive, your argument is not supported in that you
then have to show where the origins of god are addressed in the account
and that gods origins are from life.
I rather suspect that now we will see some real denial.
spintronic
> In message <zBMHk.46452$bx1.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "(M)-adman"
> At least three different viruses have been constructed artificially. I
> take it that you would conclude that this demonstrates that life can
> come from non-life.
Who constructed them?
Ye Old One
<rja.ca...@excite.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Kermit wrote:
>> 4.2 billion years ago there was no life on Earth. Now there is. Do you
>> deny it?
>
>Were you there?
Didn't need to be. The evidence is very clear.
>
>> Whether the first life appeared by a robot's design, fell from the sky
>> in a meteorite, or was poofed into existence by an invisible
>> supernatural entity, it's pretty clear that life evolved into our
>> current panoply of species via evolution.
>
>It is, but we cannot rule out yet that the earliest life was the poof
>of a supernatural entity, as you suggest. Or of a robot. (Wait,
>where does your robot come into this?)
Given that there has never been a shred of evidence found for a
supernatural entity I think it is safe to ignore that idea.
--
Bob.
(M)-adman
I asked about DNA because there may be something in the DNA that gives the
survival instinct coded at the very basic of levels. But as you pointed out,
not all viruses have DNA. So science is probably correct that a virus is
not life.
And since so many take pleasure in me being wrong, i will give you the
pleasure of saying: I may be wrong about viruses being alive.
spintronic
> In message <7hPHk.40166$IB6.11...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "(M)-adman"
> <g...@hotmail.ed> writes
Boohoo.
A virus is no more alive than a few 'ones and zeroes' are audible.
spintronic
Dont be stupid.
Unlike the civil war. You should be able to recreate abiogenesis.
You Can't get over it.
spintronic
ERRRR ERRR Wrong again, put your glasses on. BOON-HEAD.
> Which just goes to show the validity of spinny's closing comment. One
> wonders why they take so much pride in not thinking.-
Ha, A BOON-HEAD who thinks another BOON-HEAD is right.
2 BOON-HEADS dont make 1....
Stuart
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > <g...@hotmail.ed> writes
> >>> In message
> >>> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> >>>>> cannot become living matter".
>
> >>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> >>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> >>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
> >>> to a plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water,
> >>> and not from the soil?
>
> >>> There are large fluxes of matter between the biosphere and the rest
> >>> of the earth.
>
> >>> It's possible that such creationists mean "non-living matter
> >>> cannot become living matter *except by the action of preexisting
> >>> living matter*",
>
> >> The question had nothing to do with pre-existing living matter.
> >> The addition of Pre-existing living matter would not be an
> >> exception, but a different condition added to the test.
>
> > Well then, as a creationist, and since you reject my attempt at a
> > sensible interpretation of the claim, could you explain what
> > living matter".
>
> No offence but it is not sensible IMHO because photosynthesis gives the
> plant energy, or food so to speak. Photosynthesis does not add additional
> mass to the plant, it allows the plant to manfacture it's own mass. Just
> because i eat oats for breakfast does not mean i added oats to my cell
> structure or DNA.
>
> But to answer your question, There is no standard model for the origin of
> life, so defining living and non living matter cannot really get a
> scientific defination yet. But from the laypersons defination, anything that
> can reproduce and has a drive to survive could be considered living.
> Anything that cannot reproduce and is not concerned over it's destruction
> should not be considered living.
>
> host for reproduction. But the virus can reproduce and it's drive to survive
> assists the virus invading the host
>
> Anything that has an inate drive and desire to survive and reproduce, IMHO,
> is considered living. This would include the virus because a virus shows
> signs of a desire to reproduce and survive.
>
Viruses have desire?
Maybe they prefer pepperoni on the pizza too?
Stuart
Stuart
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>
> >>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> >>>>> cannot become living matter".
>
> >>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> >>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> >>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
>
> >>> I make it happen all the time when I eat.
>
> >>> Will you ever admit any of your mistakes?
>
> >>> Thought not.
>
> >> You are not creating life *FOOL*. You are making energy *FOR* life.
>
> > Nonsense. The chemical elements in food are integrated into your
> > cells.
>
> As fuel.
>
Ho do people grow assman?
Stuart
Shane
> On Oct 10, 9:53 am, "JM...@HOTMAIL.COM" <JM20000...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 12:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> and ye evolutionists have never created life from
>> scratch.
>
> Oh, and don't be suprised.
>
> "If they put their minds to it, they will accomplish anything".
That is indeed the biblical position, so it seems the christian god is
also aware that it can be done.
Stuart
> Max wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 4:46 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> >>> cannot become living matter".
>
> >>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
> >> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> >> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>
> >> Thought not.
>
> > I make it happen all the time when I eat.
>
> > Will you ever admit any of your mistakes?
>
> > Thought not.
>
> You are not creating life *FOOL*. You are making energy *FOR* life.
really?
Nothing of what we eat is incorporated as "living matter" in our
bodies?
How does one grow preytell? Or is growth magic too?
Stuart
spintronic
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:14:53 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
> > The non living matter did not establish the life of and the life in the
> > plant. Get it?
>
> Indeed we do, what we do not get is what that point has to do with
> spinny's question, which was so poorly worded as to make your position
> off topic and the current direct responses on topic.
You are a BOON-HEAD,
Lets try your logic.
> Er no, if you are trying to explain the - origin of life using ancient
> texts,
Original life could not read. Nor would it use "text's" there were no
mobile phones.
> please do feel free to name the text(s) that show the true
> origin.
Like I said, there were no mobile phones.
> And to avoid spinny's mistake of asking poorly worded questions
Like you just did?
Or is it evasive answers, because you can't answer simple questions?
> I don't mean Genesis 1 & 2 or something similar
That's dumn, there was
"The beginning".
"The Gabrial years"
"The boy band years"
"And then there were 3".
You are dumn. You should speak properly, Phil collins
has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
> for that either kills your argument oor fails to support it.
*OOR*. Your argument was a non sequitur from the second
you *PURPOSELY* twisted my context. Now your's is fucked up too.
> I rather suspect that now we will see some real denial.
If you call evasion denial. You have done enough for one day.
Or you could cite.
Name *one*. Just *one* example of the spontanious generation of life
from non-living matter.
THOUGHT NOT!
Have a nice day!
spintronic
> Given that there has never been a shred of evidence found for a
> supernatural entity I think it is safe to ignore that idea.
Idiot.
Ignore;
string theory.
singularities.
hawking radiation.
extra dimensions.
gravitons.
higgs particle.
.....
Oh and did I say
"abiogenesis"?
Mark VandeWettering
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>> cannot become living matter".
>>
>> a different kind of matter when it is found in DNA than inside
>> graphite or diamond. The kinds of chemical bonds that are formed
>> aren't any different.
>>
>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>
>>
>> Markk
>
> In your opinion, what gives elements such as carbon the ability to perform
> the tasks that DNA does?
The most important is probably that carbon has four valence bonds.
This allows it to form long and complex molecules. It also has a bond
strength that is neither too strong (so carbon compounds are still
reactive) nor too weak (so that many are stable over normal temperature
ranges). It's also relatively abundant. The most obvious possible
replacement is silicon, which also has four valence bonds, but tends to
form too many non-reactive compounds.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>> On Oct 10, 12:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>>
>>>
>>> from scratch.
>>
>> Tying your own shoelaces is probably too complicated for you, so
>> perhaps you aren't the best to judge.
>>
>> In any case, you are equivocating. The very terms "non-living matter"
>> and "living matter" are absurd. The carbon that is part of your skin
>> isn't "alive" anymore than the carbon that is in a lead pencil is.
>>
>> Mark
>
> You are trying to redefine life Mark.
For me to re-define it, you would have had to define it. You haven't.
You don't have a definition for "living matter", or for "non-living
matter" which is in anyway useful.
But as for your other problem, here's a link that might ease your feelings
of inadequacy:
http://kidsfashion.about.com/od/doityourselfstyles/tp/kidstieshoes.htm
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>> Max wrote:
>>>> On Oct 10, 4:46 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>>>
>>>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>>>
>>>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thought not.
>>>>
>>>> I make it happen all the time when I eat.
>>>>
>>>> Will you ever admit any of your mistakes?
>>>>
>>>> Thought not.
>>>
>>> You are not creating life *FOOL*. You are making energy *FOR* life.
>>
>> cells.
>
> As fuel.
Uh, as structure.
Did you take any biology classes, ever?
Mark
>
>
>>
>>> I hope you are not a scientist.
>>
>> Mark
>
Mark VandeWettering
> On Oct 10, 5:09 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 10, 10:37 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0-988e-15af577a8...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> >> >> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>> >> >> cannot become living matter".
>>
>> >> >> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>
>> >> >Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>> >> >"non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>
>> >> plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water, and not
>> >> from the soil?
>>
>>
>> > All you show here is that life comes from life.
>>
>> > Nice one.
>>
>> You should reexamine the claim more closely.
>
>
> YOU SHOULD FUCKING READ MORE CLEARLY.
You should think more clearly. And express yourself in an adult tone.
In fact, it is you who should read more clearly, since that was the
entire premise of the thread.
> NOONE IS SAYING NON_LIVING MATTER CANNOT BECOME LIVING MATTER!
Of course they are. If you'd like to abandon that claim, then bully for
you, but there are plenty of creationists that are so mentally challenged
as to emit such an absurd claim.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>> On Oct 10, 10:37 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0-988e-15af577a8...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>>
>>>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>>
>>>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>>>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>>>
>>>> What about the classic experiment demonstrate that the mass added
>>>> to a plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water,
>>>> and not from the soil?
>>>
>>>
>>> Who's arguing with that?
>>>
>>> All you show here is that life comes from life.
>>>
>>> Nice one.
>>
>> grew a tree for five years, adding only water to a carefully weighed
>> amount of soil. In the end, he had a tree which weighed 164 lbs (if
>> memory serves), but the total mass of the soil had only been reduced
>> by some two ounces. The conclusion is that the vast majority of the
>> mass of the plant (unquestionably "living matter", if the term is to
>> have any meaning at all) came purely from "non-living matter" (water,
>> air, and a small amount of matter from the soil). In this sense, all
>> normal growth processes convert "non-living matter" into "living
>> matter".
>>
>> Mark
>
> This is nonsense.
>
> The new living matter (or increase in weight) came from the USE of non
> living matter as fuel. You still got life, making more life, from the non
> living matter.
>
> But here is the funny thing. Someone actually paid a salary to Van Helmont
> to tell us this obvious lie.
I'm sorry, did I miss the part where somebody lied? Can you explain it to me?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "JM...@HOTMAIL.COM"
<JM200...@hotmail.com>:
>On Oct 10, 12:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>> cannot become living matter".
>>
>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>
>It's too complicated
OK, that's one opinion. Now please explain what "too
complicated" means, in detail.
> and ye evolutionists have never created life from
>scratch.
Irrelevant comment, unless you think "we haven't yet" is
semantically equal to "we can't ever". But you're not stupid
enough to claim that, right?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
>On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>> cannot become living matter".
>>
>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>"non-living matter becoming living matter"?
So your answer is "Well, I can't"? Fair enough.
>Thought not.
Obvious to any casual observer.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
>Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message
>> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
>>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>>
>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>> What about the classic experiment demonstrate that the mass added to a
>> plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water, and not
>> from the soil?
>>
>> There are large fluxes of matter between the biosphere and the rest of
>> the earth.
>>
>> It's possible that such creationists mean "non-living matter
>> cannot become living matter *except by the action of preexisting
>> living matter*",
>The question had nothing to do with pre-existing living matter.
No, it simply stated a common Creationist claim and asked
why it was believed by Creationists.
>The addition of Pre-existing living matter would not be an exception, but a
>different condition added to the test.
No, it would be a restriction on the conditions. As phrased,
normal assimilation of non-living matter is acceptable as an
example, although that's not how it would usually be
interpreted.
>>but that's not what they write, and considering the
>> incoherence often displayed by creationists assuming that would not be
>> safe. It's also not consistent with the combination of Big Bang
>> cosmology and the observed existence of life.
>>>
>>> Thought not.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Oct 10, 10:42 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> Given that there has never been a shred of evidence found for a
>> supernatural entity I think it is safe to ignore that idea.
>
>Idiot.
>
>
>Ignore;
>
>string theory.
Why?
>singularities.
Why?
>hawking radiation.
Why?
>extra dimensions.
Why?
>gravitons.
Why?
>higgs particle.
Why?
>.....
>
>
>Oh and did I say
>
>"abiogenesis"?
Why?
--
Bob.
Shane
> On Oct 10, 11:32 pm, Shane <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:14:53 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
>
>>> The non living matter did not establish the life of and the life in the
>>> plant. Get it?
>>
>> Indeed we do, what we do not get is what that point has to do with
>> spinny's question, which was so poorly worded as to make your position
>> off topic and the current direct responses on topic.
>
> You are a BOON-HEAD,
Thanks. David Boon was a great sportsman, a genuine larrikan, and a
proficieant drinker. Truly an Australian to be admired.
> Lets try your logic.
This will be fun.
<read rest of post>
GOOOOAAAALLLLL.
>> Er no, if you are trying to explain the - origin of life using ancient
>> texts,
>
> Original life could not read. Nor would it use "text's" there were no
> mobile phones.
So you are suggesting God had no idea what those he supposedly inspired
to write were actually putting down. Well that does explain rather a
lot.
>> please do feel free to name the text(s) that show the true
>> origin.
>
> Like I said, there were no mobile phones.
Oooh a funny. but sadly for you, mobile phones are not the only means of
texting.
>> And to avoid spinny's mistake of asking poorly worded questions
>
> Like you just did?
Nope, like you did.
> Or is it evasive answers, because you can't answer simple questions?
Your poorly wordede question was already answered sufficient times for
an another einstance to be superfluous
>> I don't mean Genesis 1 & 2 or something similar
>
> That's dumn, there was
Dumn?
> "The beginning".
>
> "The Gabrial years"
>
> "The boy band years"
>
> "And then there were 3".
>
> You are dumn.
Quite possibly, although it will depend somewhat on what you consider
dumn means. Where I come from it means "handsome slayer of creationist
arguments." Although I consider that a bit of hyperbole, I merely refute
them rather than slay them, and the handsome bit is way over the top.
> You should speak properly, Phil collins
Shouldn't you therefore write properly, and capitalise Collins? Or are
you just too wedded to hypocrisy to care?
> has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
How do you know?
>> for that either kills your argument oor fails to support it.
>
> *OOR*. Your argument was a non sequitur from the second
> you *PURPOSELY* twisted my context. Now your's is fucked up too.
I never responded to your argument, My response was to Madman. Thus your
lack of thought is again obvious, and your conclusion suffers as a
result.
HTH
>> I rather suspect that now we will see some real denial.
>
> If you call evasion denial. You have done enough for one day.
What have I evaded?
> Or you could cite.
Why? it just highlights the embarrassing lack of it on your part.
> Name *one*. Just *one* example of the spontanious generation of life
> from non-living matter.
The abiogenesis event that ocurred some 3.5 billion years ago here on
earth.
> THOUGHT NOT!
We know you didn't think about this, however, your thoughlessness is
really nothing to be so proud of that you need to shout about it.
> Have a nice day!
I will indeed, all the nicer in fact for it being sunny and warm, and
starting with a couple of dead fish in a barrel. My thnaks to both you
and Madman for failing yet again to rasie any meaningful questions
against science, and for your continued efforts in demonstrating that
fundamentalism destroys clear thinking.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Oct 10, 10:26 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 4:46 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>> > > cannot become living matter".
>>
>> > > So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>
>> > Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>> > "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>
>> > Thought not.
>>
>> I guess you also doubt the Civil War because you weren't there to see
>> it happen.
>
>Dont be stupid.
The only stupid one is, as usual, you.
>
>
>
>
>Unlike the civil war. You should be able to recreate abiogenesis.
In reality life had the whole planet and at least 250 million years to
get started.
>
>You Can't get over it.
What is there to get over - other than your abject stupidity/
--
Bob.
Robert Carnegie
Ernest Major wrote:
> In message
> <cefe4e37-f82d-417f...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
> >Ernest Major wrote:
> >> In message <zBMHk.46452$bx1....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "(M)-adman"
> >> <gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
> >> >Ernest Major wrote:
> >> >> In message <G9KHk.45133$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "(M)-adman"
> >> >> <gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
> >> >>> Ernest Major wrote:
> >> >>>> In message
> >> >>>> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >>>> spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >>>>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
> >> >>>>>> cannot become living matter".
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
> >> >>>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> What about the classic experiment demonstrate that the mass added
> >> >>>> to a plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water,
> >> >>>> and not from the soil?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> There are large fluxes of matter between the biosphere and the rest
> >> >>>> of the earth.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It's possible that such creationists mean "non-living matter
> >> >>>> cannot become living matter *except by the action of preexisting
> >> >>>> living matter*",
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The question had nothing to do with pre-existing living matter.
> >> >>> The addition of Pre-existing living matter would not be an
> >> >>> exception, but a different condition added to the test.
> >> >>>
> >> >> Well then, as a creationist, and since you reject my attempt at a
> >> >> sensible interpretation of the claim, could you explain what
> >> >> creationists mean when they say that "non-living matter cannot become
> >> >> living matter".
> >> >
> >> >No offence but it is not sensible IMHO because photosynthesis gives the
> >> >plant energy, or food so to speak. Photosynthesis does not add additional
> >> >mass to the plant, it allows the plant to manfacture it's own mass. Just
> >> >because i eat oats for breakfast does not mean i added oats to my cell
> >> >structure or DNA.
> >> >
> >> >But to answer your question, There is no standard model for the origin of
> >> >life, so defining living and non living matter cannot really get a
> >> >scientific defination yet. But from the laypersons defination, anything that
> >> >can reproduce and has a drive to survive could be considered living.
> >> >Anything that cannot reproduce and is not concerned over it's destruction
> >> >should not be considered living.
> >> >
> >> >Science does not consider a virus living, i would assume because it needs a
> >> >host for reproduction. But the virus can reproduce and it's drive to survive
> >> >assists the virus invading the host
> >> >
> >> >Anything that has an inate drive and desire to survive and reproduce, IMHO,
> >> >is considered living. This would include the virus because a virus shows
> >> >signs of a desire to reproduce and survive.
> >> >
> >> At least three different viruses have been constructed artificially. I
> >> take it that you would conclude that this demonstrates that life can
> >> come from non-life.
> >
> >I do not know the basis for a creationist position that a virus is
> >alive. Is there such an opinion?
> >
> I was about to write that I didn't see any particular reason why
> creationists should take a position different from the rest of us as to
> whether viruses are alive (I see it as a matter of definition, rather
> than a matter of fact), but on second thoughts they might reject the
> living nature of viruses for tactical reasons.
You mean lying?
I suppose another angle is whether a virus has a soul - I mean, why
not, and in the old days Christians (and all other religions) thought
that diseases were caused by evil spirits - so what if we imagine that
they are?
Mark VandeWettering
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>> On 10 Oct, 09:46, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>>>
>>>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>>>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>>>>
> plant. Get it?
>
> expand itself. The plant (or all life for that matter) did not organize
> itself, by itself, into a living structure even though the life is made up
> of non living matter and uses nonliving mater as fuel.
You're equivocating.
> If i am wrong, please explain this creation of living matter from non-living
> matter.
There is no such thing as "living matter" or "non-living matter". That
creationists try to draw such a distinction is where they first go off
the tracks.
> We already know life will use non-living matter to continue life and
> to expand it's life.
How does one measure this "expansion of life"?
> We already know life is made up of non living matter.
Living things are made of matter. There is no sense in trying to
make any distinction about "living matter" or "non-living matter".
>>> Now, to answer your above inquiry:
>>> Can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>
>>> AFAIK There are two general forms of matter. One is non-living, the
>>> other is living. To-date, it cannot be explained scientifically why
>>> otherwise non-living matter can organize itself into living
>>> matter.(much less intelligent living matter)
>>>
>>> But it can be explained with mankind's plethora of ancient texts and
>>> historical tradition.
>>
>> What piffle.
>
> What denial
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
On 2008-10-10, \(M)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> In message <G9KHk.45133$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "(M)-adman"
>> <gr...@hotmail.ed> writes
>>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <603d3c9d-32c1-48c0...@c60g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>>>> It has often been declared by creationists that "non-living matter
>>>>>> cannot become living matter".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So can any creationist explain why they consider this to be true?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you first cite an actual example or experiment of
>>>>> "non-living matter becoming living matter"?
>>>>
>>>> to a plant by photosynthesis comes from the atmosphere and water,
>>>> and not from the soil?
>>>>
>>>> There are large fluxes of matter between the biosphere and the rest
>>>> of the earth.
>>>>
>>>> It's possible that such creationists mean "non-living matter
>>>> cannot become living matter *except by the action of preexisting
>>>> living matter*",
>>>
>>> The question had nothing to do with pre-existing living matter.
>>> The addition of Pre-existing living matter would not be an
>>> exception, but a different condition added to the test.
>>>
>> Well then, as a creationist, and since you reject my attempt at a
>> sensible interpretation of the claim, could you explain what
>> living matter".
>
> No offence but it is not sensible IMHO because photosynthesis gives the
> plant energy, or food so to speak. Photosynthesis does not add additional
> mass to the plant, it allows the plant to manfacture it's own mass.
Uh.. No. Photosynthesis is the metabolic process that converts carbon
dioxide and water into oxygen and carbohydrates. Plants don't create
mass: they convert gases and water into their own cells.
> Just because i eat oats for breakfast does not mean i added oats to my
> cell structure or DNA.
But the matter in the oats does become the matter in your cells. Where
the heck else could it come from?
> But to answer your question, There is no standard model for the
> origin of life, so defining living and non living matter cannot
> really get a scientific defination yet. But from the laypersons
> defination, anything that can reproduce and has a drive to survive
> could be considered living.
It's not a very useful definition, given that it's hard to observe "drive".
> Anything that cannot reproduce and is not concerned over it's destruction
> should not be considered living.
>
> Science does not consider a virus living, i would assume because it
> needs a host for reproduction. But the virus can reproduce and it's
> drive to survive assists the virus invading the host Anything that
> has an inate drive and desire to survive and reproduce, IMHO, is
> considered living. This would include the virus because a virus shows
> signs of a desire to reproduce and survive.
Well, biologists disagree. Their characterization of viruses as non-living
is troubling in some ways (I think that it is arbitrary, and might just as
easily apply to a great number of parasites which they do accept as being
alive") but at least it isn't built on a shaky foundation of some abstract
quantity called "drive".
Mark
(M)-adman
Do you actually believe eating creates life?
No kook, eating sustains life.
(M)-adman
Did you learn abstract thought in college?
Stuart
You claim that there is a difference between living and non-living
matter.
Your terms, and thats what you claim. And thats the claim that I was
addressing
assman.
We ingest non-living matter, by your definition.. yes?
Is some of it not incorporated, never mind metabolized, within our
bodies as living matter?
If not, then how do we grow? Or is living matter just the matter
we are born with?
Hoisted by your own petard, I'd say. Thats what happens when you make
stuff up.
Stuart