Your opinion please.
(M)-adman
Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
living matter and non-living matter.
From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
non-living matter life.
Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
Your personal opinion will do also.
thanks
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
spintronic
There are lots of elements. (117 & counting)
No matter is living. (As in mass)
The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
The "whole" can assimilate mass/matter, which by
definition now constitutes the "whole".
Ergo: The "living- whole" can take (non-living or & living) matter
to call it's own.
All you end up with is "life comes from life".
Kleuskes & Moos
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> non-living matter life.
The chinese (the ancient chinese) defined a fifth element: wood. That
would fit your bill.
> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
> to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
Nope. Matter, as such, is neither "living" nor "non-living". Life is a
property of complex organical structures, not matter per se.
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah... Sure....
Rolf
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:aAIIk.47574$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Indeed it does: BS.
> thanks
You're welcome.
Boikat
Actually, you are reprising a question that was originally asked by an
evolutionist, and creationists could not answer. Now you are posing
the same question in a failed attempt to appear to be semi-
intelligent.
But to answer your question: No, science does not know the how ,
exactly, the "first" life started. The thread you cribbed the
question from addresses the difference between "livin" and "non-
living"
Boikat
spintronic
> On Oct 13, 9:06 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> > living matter and non-living matter.
>
> > From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> > element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> > matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> > standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> > world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> > substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> > grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> > non-living matter life.
>
> > Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
> > to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
>
> > Your personal opinion will do also.
>
> > thanks
>
> Actually, you are reprising a question that was originally asked by an
> evolutionist, and creationists could not answer. Now you are posing
> the same question in a failed attempt to appear to be semi-
> intelligent.
Hmm. Mind games.
This question predates time (recorded time).
Since evolutionists are a recent mould.
How could an "evolutionist" have asked a "creationist" this original
question before recorded history?
> But to answer your question:
But you don't.
> No, science does not know the how ,
Think you just did.
Boikat
> On Oct 13, 3:38 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 9:06 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> > > Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> > > living matter and non-living matter.
>
> > > From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> > > element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> > > matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> > > standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> > > world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> > > substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> > > grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> > > non-living matter life.
>
> > > Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
> > > to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
>
> > > Your personal opinion will do also.
>
> > > thanks
>
> > Actually, you are reprising a question that was originally asked by an
> > evolutionist, and creationists could not answer. Now you are posing
> > the same question in a failed attempt to appear to be semi-
> > intelligent.
>
> Hmm. Mind games.
That's the way I see it too.
>
> This question predates time (recorded time).
I'm sure it does, in one form or another.
>
> Since evolutionists are a recent mould.
>
> How could an "evolutionist" have asked a "creationist" this original
> question before recorded history?
There were not "evolutionists" before recorded history (as you said),
so your question is meaningless.
>
> > But to answer your question:
>
> But you don't.
>
> > No, science does not know the how ,
>
> Think you just did.
Dishonest snippage noted. Restoring:
"But to answer your question: No, science does not know the how ,
exactly, the "first" life started. The thread you cribbed the
question from addresses the difference between "livin" and "non-
living". "
You are a dishonest piece of shit, and an asshole.
Boikat
Vend
Troll wars.
spintronic
> On Oct 13, 9:48 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Actually, you are reprising a question that was originally asked by an
> > > evolutionist, and creationists could not answer.
> > This question predates time (recorded time).
>
> I'm sure it does, in one form or another.
>
> > Since evolutionists are a recent mould.
>
> > How could an "evolutionist" have asked a "creationist" this original
> > question before recorded history?
>
> There were not "evolutionists" before recorded history (as you said),
> so your question is meaningless.
Not my question. Try again.
Boikat
This was your question:
"How could an "evolutionist" have asked a "creationist" this original
question before recorded history?"
As you earlier said, there were no "evolutionists" in prehistory to
pose the question.
Boikiat
Lee
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:aAIIk.47574$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
Scientist are already discussing the implications of creating new life
forms in the laboratory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/556984.stm
It is unlikely they would waste time doing this if it was thought to be an
improbable goal.
Progress so far:
Dr Craig Ventnor builds synthetic genome:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/24/sciventer224.xml
George Church develops blueprint for fully synthetic cell:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19526114.000-countdown-to-a-synthetic-lifeform.html
Other work has been done describing how simple amino acid molecules in cold
conditions are forced into regular structures by ice crystals thus producing
more complex molecules possibly demonstrating how early DNA or RNA may have
originally formed. The more complex molecules not being formed randomly but
set by the regular shape of the ice crystals which act in a similar way to a
template thus forming many similar copies.
DNA has already been synthesised, cells are a little more complex being
rather like little nano-factories but most estimates predict that a fully
working synthetic cell should be doing backflips across some Petri dish
within 10 years.
Reasonable hypotheses show that other factors could produce molecules
complex enough and in enough numbers over time to initiate life rather than
a mere random mix of undefined elements so favoured by creationist.
My personal opinion is that artificial life will be created in the
laboratory within the next decade. After god believers get over the shock
hopefully they won't start dabbling in matters that no holy book on earth
makes provision for.
Artificial cells may have great uses from cleaning up pollution to providing
clean fuels and the scientist that create them will be richer than a pope
but there will also be a need to use such technology wisely.
Frank J
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> matter into a state of living matter that we call life.
I guess you are using the word "element" figuratively, and not that
there's a yet-undetected "element" that will someday be added to the
periodic table.
Unfortunately "vitalism" has proven sterile as a science, so unless yo
have a novel idea, you have to just take it on faith as the rest of us
theists do.
But keep in mind that living organisms are *systems* in which matter
and energy "come and go." I just added some 02 and given back some C02
and H20 while typing this. What stays with me, and thus "defines me"
is not the matter, but the "set of reactions" (which itself is not
static).
To put it more bluntly, a living thing is an event, not an object.
> Also from a creation
> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> non-living matter life.
Huh? So I guess you do mean a new "element" - in a "periodic table"
that even the DI would admit is obsolete.
>
> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
> to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
>
> Your personal opinion will do also.
See above. There's no reason to reject - or misrepresent - modern
science to appreciate God's Creation.
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> non-living matter life.
This might have been a reasonable (if not exactly 'reasoned') position
to hold even into the 20th century. After all, in 1944, Erwin
Schrodinger published the book "What is Life?" based upon his 1943
lectures on the same. Quoting:
"The large and imporant and very much discussed question
is:
How can the events in _space and time_ which take place within
the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by
physics and chemistry?
The preliminary answer which this little book will endeavor
to expound and establish can be summarized as follows:
The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry
to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that
they can be accounted for by those sciences."
Schrodinger's book was vastly influential, essentially launching the idea
of biophysics. It inspired many, including Francis Crick. It's still a
very interesting read, since it predicts many of the advances in biology in
the last 50 years.
> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
> to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
"Living" is a property of organisms, not of matter. DNA isn't alive: it's
part of a system of complex chemical reactions that we call "life". Organisms
can be said to be alive or dead, but it isn't meaningful to apply that term
to their component molecules.
Frank J
Except that it had to come from non-life at least once, by definition.
Which means that it's the *anti-evolutionists* - at least the majority
of which who assert or imply that life originated many times - who
have a lot of 'splainin to do. Evolution, and some versions of
creationism, such as Behe's, are perfectly compatible with abiogenesis
being a once-in-a-Universe event.
spintronic
> "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> Other work has been done describing how simple amino acid molecules in cold
> conditions are forced into regular structures by ice crystals thus producing
> more complex molecules possibly demonstrating how early DNA or RNA may have
> originally formed.
Was that amino acids or DNA?
Do you have a citation?
> The more complex molecules not being formed randomly but
> set by the regular shape of the ice crystals which act in a similar way to a
> template thus forming many similar copies.
Hmm, you seem to have formed an "association".
(regular shape = complex code)
Again do you have a citation?
> DNA has already been synthesised,
Copied. So has shakesphere.
> cells are a little more complex being rather like little nano-factories
> but most estimates predict that a fully working synthetic cell should
> be doing backflips across some Petri dish within 10 years.
Hmm.
Would they be "copies"?
> Reasonable hypotheses show that other factors could produce molecules
> complex enough and in enough numbers over time to initiate life
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Down shep.
Can you cite, any scenario? Any at all?
> My personal opinion is that artificial life will be created in the
> laboratory within the next decade.
Mine is in the next 2 months.
> After god believers get over the shock hopefully they won't start
> dabbling in matters that no holy book on earth makes provision for.
No. No shock, no dabbling.
We leave stupidity to create it's own undoing.
> Artificial cells may have great uses from cleaning up pollution to providing
> clean fuels and the scientist that create them will be richer than a pope
> but there will also be a need to use such technology wisely.
Hmm, most of this can be done (by experts) at a cost of $1000 in a
kitchen.
Wether someone get rich is a matter of debate, and there is no way
of preventing this technology from being utilised by any loon ball
with half a
brain cell.
All the top infectious agent's can be ordered by e-bay.
John Harshman
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> non-living matter life.
That's nice. Have you looked at a periodic table lately? Oddly, there
are no boxes for earth, air, fire, or water. Instead of 4 or 5 elements
there are something over a hundred. Your medieval biology is no better
than your medieval atomic physics.
> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
> to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from non-living
matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems that maintain
themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by running energy through
the system. It's a process, not a condition of matter.
And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the in
vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second question is
meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life emerged. But that's
a separate question from this primitive vitalism you espouse.
spintronic
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
See, he agrees with me.
TomS
<7718773d-e0e3-4236...@l62g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Kleuskes &
Moos stated..."
>
>On 13 okt, 15:06, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
>> living matter and non-living matter.
>>
> an
>> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
>ion
>> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
>> world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
>ve
>> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
>> non-living matter life.
>
>The chinese (the ancient chinese) defined a fifth element: wood. That
>would fit your bill.
Maybe qi, or elan vital?
And don't forget ether and caloric - and what is the element that
accounts for magnetism?
>
>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compar=
>es
>> to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
>
>Nope. Matter, as such, is neither "living" nor "non-living". Life is a
>property of complex organical structures, not matter per se.
>
>
>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>
>> =B7.=B8Adman=B8.=B7
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yeah... Sure....
>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
David Canzi
\(M\)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
>living matter and non-living matter.
>
>From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
>element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
>matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
>standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
>world.
If this new element doesn't already have a name, I propose that
we call it "noceum". (The stress is on the middle syllable.)
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
Lee
"spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68fe5ecb-79ea-4faa...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 13, 4:34 pm, "Lee" <m...@darwin.ediacara.org> wrote:
> "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> Other work has been done describing how simple amino acid molecules in
> cold
> conditions are forced into regular structures by ice crystals thus
> producing
> more complex molecules possibly demonstrating how early DNA or RNA may
> have
> originally formed.
Was that amino acids or DNA?
Do you have a citation?
Yup it's about a year since reading it but I managed to find the article:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice
> The more complex molecules not being formed randomly but
> set by the regular shape of the ice crystals which act in a similar way to
> a
> template thus forming many similar copies.
Hmm, you seem to have formed an "association".
(regular shape = complex code)
Again do you have a citation?
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice
> DNA has already been synthesised,
Copied. So has shakesphere.
The DNA molecules were indeed copied, reverse engineered if you like.
Shakespeare also has been re-interprited in films like Westside story and
the Lion King was which was based upon Hamlet. Quite different to what the
Elizibethan playwright had in mind when he originally created the works I
would think.
> cells are a little more complex being rather like little nano-factories
> but most estimates predict that a fully working synthetic cell should
> be doing backflips across some Petri dish within 10 years.
Hmm.
Would they be "copies"?
1. Nasa are working on creating artificial cell membranes from Polymersomes,
possible uses include 'storable' blood for medical emergencies during space
travel. No not copies.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29may_polymersomes.htm
The function of other cell parts like mitocondrian, vacuoles etc is well
understood so synthesising them is unlikely to pose too many problems to be
do-able.
> Reasonable hypotheses show that other factors could produce molecules
> complex enough and in enough numbers over time to initiate life
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Down shep.
Can you cite, any scenario? Any at all?
yes, but I need a doggy snack to do further tricks. Besides the article on
amino acid formation in ice is a good long read.
> My personal opinion is that artificial life will be created in the
> laboratory within the next decade.
Mine is in the next 2 months.
> After god believers get over the shock hopefully they won't start
> dabbling in matters that no holy book on earth makes provision for.
No. No shock, no dabbling.
We leave stupidity to create it's own undoing.
Yes very true, you certainly do, four centuries was it before Galileo got a
much deserved apology?
> Artificial cells may have great uses from cleaning up pollution to
> providing
> clean fuels and the scientist that create them will be richer than a pope
> but there will also be a need to use such technology wisely.
Hmm, most of this can be done (by experts) at a cost of $1000 in a
kitchen.
Wether someone get rich is a matter of debate, and there is no way
of preventing this technology from being utilised by any loon ball
with half a
brain cell.
All the top infectious agent's can be ordered by e-bay.
If the top infectious agents are so freely available it would seem a waste
of time and resources to create anymore. Besides, most people I think would
prefer to be remembered for posterity as an Alexander Fleming rather than a
Fritz Haber.
The leader in the field of artificial life research is Craig Ventnor and
according to this article the money from green fuels woulds make him into
dollar trillionare.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2010049.ece
The present day argument against the creation of artificial life is more or
less analogous to someone asking the Wright brothers if their first creation
was an aircraft or not because it could not fly faster than sound.
Boikat
> In article <aAIIk.47574$rD2.28...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>
> \(M\)-adman <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
> >Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> >living matter and non-living matter.
>
> >From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> >element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> >matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> >standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> >world.
>
> If this new element doesn't already have a name, I propose that
> we call it "noceum". (The stress is on the middle syllable.)
>
For admonkeys benefit, that would be pronounced "no-SEE-em", not to be
confused with "no-see-ums' (Note the "s" at the end of the word),
which is the name given to small biting insects and other pests, like
chiggers.
Boikat
(M)-adman
How do you know it is a once-in-a-Universe event? There very well could
have been a second creation here on earth.
It would explain much
(M)-adman
And i suspect life will always beget life, or come from life, even is
science finds a way to create it in a lab.
Timberwoof
"\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> matter into a state of living matter that we call life.
Well, that was redundantly worded with extra words and unnecessary
repetition. (Animates means putting life in.)
There's a problem at the very start, though: you start "From a creation
standpoint." This means you are predisposed to try to find an
explanation that is in accord with the story of Genesis, and which will
preclude humans from ever replicating abiogenesis. What you're doing is
not scientific in the strict sense.
> Also from a creation
> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> world.
And that pretty much seals it. You cannot come up with a scientific
experiment that would verify the existence or nonexistence of that
creator.
> I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> substances, earth, air, fire, or water.
You've got to be kidding. Snurri Sturluson tells us that the four
elements are ice, water, earth, and fire. Those are obvious. What's this
air thing? Other than as metaphors for states of matter (solid, liquid,
gaseous, plasma), do you seriously believe that the four elements
proposed by various Greek philosophers, whose asses the Vikings could
kick any day, have any relevance in modern science?
So you think life is a substance. Can you describe it in terms of a
modern chemical understanding of matter? You know, the one in which the
elements are hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, neon, etc?
> I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> non-living matter life.
>
> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
> to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
People have been telling you for several days now, but you apparently
haven't paid any attention.
First, there's no detectable difference between the atoms in non-living
matter and atoms of the same chemical elements in living matter. Well,
except for the C14 thing, but that's an effect of life, not a cause.
Second, chemical elements can combine into all sorts of complex
structures. If conditions are right, a mix of substances can
self-organize into dynamically stable configurations. It is not *known*
precisely by what process life emerged from chemical muck; scientists
cleverer than I are working on it.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
Timberwoof
<7718773d-e0e3-4236...@l62g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 13 okt, 15:06, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> > Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> > living matter and non-living matter.
> >
> > From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> > element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> > matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> > standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> > world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> > substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> > grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> > non-living matter life.
>
> The chinese (the ancient chinese) defined a fifth element: wood. That
> would fit your bill.
So now we have six elements: Earth, ice, wood, water, air, fire.
(M)-adman
> (M)-adman wrote:
>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>
>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
>> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates
>> the non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call
>> life. Also from a creation standpoint i think it was a creator that
>> placed this element into this world. I use the word element as in a
>> substance, such as one of four substances, earth, air, fire, or
>> water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative grounds there is a 5th
>> element that we have not discovered yet that gives non-living matter
>> life.
>
> That's nice. Have you looked at a periodic table lately? Oddly, there
> are no boxes for earth, air, fire, or water. Instead of 4 or 5
> elements there are something over a hundred. Your medieval biology is
> no better than your medieval atomic physics.
My reference is straight out of a (modern day) dictionary for the word
"element".
>
>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
>> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
>> matter?
>
> No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from
> non-living matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems that
> maintain themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by running
> energy through the system. It's a process, not a condition of matter.
uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can achieve thought,
emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn. (except in your case of course)
>
> And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the in
> vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it call it's beaker
"mommie"?
>
> Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second question is
> meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life emerged. But
> that's a separate question from this primitive vitalism you espouse.
IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT, life can be
considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien movie.
ok
>> Your personal opinion will do also.
>>
>> thanks
--
(M)-adman
No one can see this element. Yet.
But at one time we could not see bacteria either.
Frank J
I don't *know* that, and nowhere in my reply do I say that I do.
> There very well could
> have been a second creation here on earth.
Or maybe much more than 2. But the onus is on *anti-evolutionists* to
verify it. Unfortunately they're too busy trying to fool people that
it didn't even happen once.
>
> It would explain much
So get busy. Be the first.
>
> --
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^- Hide quoted text -
Kleuskes & Moos
> "On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT), in article
> Moos stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 13 okt, 15:06, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> >> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> >> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been=
> > an
> >> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> >> matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creat=
> >ion
> >> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> >> world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> >> substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentati=
> >ve
> >> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> >> non-living matter life.
>
> >The chinese (the ancient chinese) defined a fifth element: wood. That
> >would fit your bill.
>
> Maybe qi, or elan vital?
I'm not that well versed in ancient chinese worldviews...
> And don't forget ether and caloric - and what is the element that
> accounts for magnetism?
That would be Maxwellium. Or does that only account for
electromagnetism?
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>> (M)-adman wrote:
>>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>>
>>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
>>> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates
>>> the non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call
>>> life. Also from a creation standpoint i think it was a creator that
>>> placed this element into this world. I use the word element as in a
>>> substance, such as one of four substances, earth, air, fire, or
>>> water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative grounds there is a 5th
>>> element that we have not discovered yet that gives non-living matter
>>> life.
>> That's nice. Have you looked at a periodic table lately? Oddly, there
>> are no boxes for earth, air, fire, or water. Instead of 4 or 5
>> elements there are something over a hundred. Your medieval biology is
>> no better than your medieval atomic physics.
>
> My reference is straight out of a (modern day) dictionary for the word
> "element".
Your modern day dictionary is citing an ancient meaning. Or didn't you
notice? Calling water, etc. an element is just silly. Calling fire a
substance is likewise silly. I agree that a silly meaning is appropriate
for your search for the elan vital, though.
>>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
>>> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
>>> matter?
>> No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from
>> non-living matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems that
>> maintain themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by running
>> energy through the system. It's a process, not a condition of matter.
>
> uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can achieve thought,
> emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn. (except in your case of course)
Yes, I do believe that, and it should be obvious to anyone who knows
anything about biology. There is no mysterious life principle. Life is a
product of physical processes. Vitalism died in the 19th century.
>> And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the in
>> vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
>
> Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it call it's beaker
> "mommie"?
No. What it showed is that organic compounds are no more special than
inorganic compounds. Most life doesn't think and feel or call anything
"mommie". And I can get replication in a test tube just by mixing and
heating a few molecules of the right sort (we call it PCR). You are very
confused.
>> Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second question is
>> meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life emerged. But
>> that's a separate question from this primitive vitalism you espouse.
>
> IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT, life can be
> considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien movie.
Whenever you start a sentence with "IOW", I know it's going to be a
nonsensical strawman.
Timberwoof
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <7718773d-e0e3-4236...@l62g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Kleuskes
> &
> Moos stated..."
> >
> >On 13 okt, 15:06, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> >> living matter and non-living matter.
> >>
> >> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must
> >> have been= an element that was added to non living matter that
> >> annimates the non-living matter into a state of living matter that
> >> we call life. Also from a creat= ion standpoint i think it was a
> >> creator that placed this element into this world. I use the word
> >> element as in a substance, such as one of four substances, earth,
> >> air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentati= ve grounds
> >> there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> >> non-living matter life.
> >
> >The chinese (the ancient chinese) defined a fifth element: wood. That
> >would fit your bill.
>
> Maybe qi, or elan vital?
>
> And don't forget ether and caloric - and what is the element that
> accounts for magnetism?
I know, I know! Magnetite!
Timberwoof
"\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> David Canzi wrote:
> > In article <aAIIk.47574$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> > \(M\)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >>
> >> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
> >> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
> >>
> >> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
> >> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates
> >> the non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call
> >> life. Also from a creation standpoint i think it was a creator that
> >> placed this element into this world.
> >
> > If this new element doesn't already have a name, I propose that
> > we call it "noceum". (The stress is on the middle syllable.)
>
> No one can see this element. Yet.
>
> But at one time we could not see bacteria either.
You're not allowed to use that argument because you tried to invalidate
it as used to defend abiogenesis experiments that haven't worked yet.
Timberwoof
"\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > (M)-adman wrote:
> >> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
> >> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
> >>
> >> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
> >> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates
> >> the non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call
> >> life. Also from a creation standpoint i think it was a creator that
> >> placed this element into this world. I use the word element as in a
> >> substance, such as one of four substances, earth, air, fire, or
> >> water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative grounds there is a 5th
> >> element that we have not discovered yet that gives non-living matter
> >> life.
> >
> > That's nice. Have you looked at a periodic table lately? Oddly, there
> > are no boxes for earth, air, fire, or water. Instead of 4 or 5
> > elements there are something over a hundred. Your medieval biology is
> > no better than your medieval atomic physics.
>
> My reference is straight out of a (modern day) dictionary for the word
> "element".
I note that you didn't include the citation and that you ignored the
other meanings. So this means you're playing more word games.
> >> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
> >> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
> >> matter?
> >
> > No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from
> > non-living matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems that
> > maintain themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by running
> > energy through the system. It's a process, not a condition of matter.
>
> uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can achieve thought,
> emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn.
Word games again.
> (except in your case of course)
Be nice.
> > And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the in
> > vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
>
> Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it call it's beaker
> "mommie"?
(It's is a contraction of it is. You want the possessive form of it,
which is its.) In answer to your straw-man question, no.
> > Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second question is
> > meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life emerged. But
> > that's a separate question from this primitive vitalism you espouse.
>
> IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT, life can be
> considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien movie.
That's an unwarranted conclusion.
> ok
Okay. In this post you have descended into silly word games, immature
conclusions, and personal insults. You should give up before you
completely self-destruct.
Timberwoof
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
"Organic", by the way, has a different meaning in chemistry than a lay
person might think. It was originally intended to mean chemicals that
could only be synthesized in living systems, but it has come to mean
carbon compounds. That includes plastics and petroleum.
> Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second question is
> meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life emerged. But that's
> a separate question from this primitive vitalism you espouse.
>
> > Your personal opinion will do also.
> >
> > thanks
--
Timberwoof
"Lee" <m...@darwin.ediacara.org> wrote:
> "spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:68fe5ecb-79ea-4faa...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 4:34 pm, "Lee" <m...@darwin.ediacara.org> wrote:
> > "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Other work has been done describing how simple amino acid molecules in
> > cold
> > conditions are forced into regular structures by ice crystals thus
> > producing
> > more complex molecules possibly demonstrating how early DNA or RNA may
> > have
> > originally formed.
>
> Was that amino acids or DNA?
>
>
> Do you have a citation?
>
> Yup it's about a year since reading it but I managed to find the article:
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice
Lee, please set up your Google Groups settings to follow the traditional
quoting protocol. It is impossible to tell just by looking which words
are yours and which are Spintronic's.
Because of that confusion, I'm not inclined to read the rest of your
article.
Lee
"Timberwoof" <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-AC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about the confusion but I am not on Google Groups, rather I am using a
Newsreader.
This lack of separation happens occasionally although for what reason I
don't know it is kind of random. In future if it looks like happening I will
make some way of separating things though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shane
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> non-living matter life.
Milla Jovovich could certainly re-animate me.
Mike Dworetsky
> In article
> <7718773d-e0e3-4236...@l62g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 13 okt, 15:06, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> > Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>> > regarding
>> > living matter and non-living matter.
>> >
>> > From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
>> > been an
>> > element that was added to non living matter that annimates the
>> > non-living
>> > matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a
>> > creation
>> > standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
>> > world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
>> > substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on
>> > tentative
>> > grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that
>> > gives
>> > non-living matter life.
>>
>> The chinese (the ancient chinese) defined a fifth element: wood. That
>> would fit your bill.
>
> So now we have six elements: Earth, ice, wood, water, air, fire.
>
>
I always thought the fifth element was pet hair.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
(M)-adman
<quote>
abiogenesis being a once-in-a-Universe event
</quote>
>
>> There very well could
>> have been a second creation here on earth.
>
> Or maybe much more than 2. But the onus is on *anti-evolutionists* to
> verify it. Unfortunately they're too busy trying to fool people that
> it didn't even happen once.
Their claim is it happened once. How can they be busy trying to fool people
that id did not happen once?
>>
>> It would explain much
>
>
> So get busy. Be the first.
I have no proof yet. Just a theory that happens to match some of the ancient
texts
>
>>
>> --
>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
List of confirmed liers
1) J.J. O'Shea
you can be added to the list too!
(M)-adman
Semantics. What would you prefer to call X that animates non living matter?
>>>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
>>>> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
>>>> matter?
>>> No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from
>>> non-living matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems
>>> that maintain themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by running
>>> energy through the system. It's a process, not a condition of
>>> matter.
>>
>> uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can achieve
>> thought, emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn. (except in your
>> case of course)
>
> Yes, I do believe that, and it should be obvious to anyone who knows
> anything about biology. There is no mysterious life principle. Life
> is a product of physical processes. Vitalism died in the 19th century.
Nonsense. But for shitz-n-gigglez, where did this process begin? What or who
orginated the pathways? Why can science not duplicate this process? What is
the name of the process? Can it be observed without matter?
>
>>> And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the in
>>> vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
>>
>> Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it call
>> it's beaker "mommie"?
>
> No. What it showed is that organic compounds are no more special than
> inorganic compounds. Most life doesn't think and feel or call anything
> "mommie". And I can get replication in a test tube just by mixing and
> heating a few molecules of the right sort (we call it PCR). You are
> very confused.
That would be you. Very confused. You are not describing life. You are
describing a chemical reaction.
>
>>> Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second question
>>> is meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life emerged. But
>>> that's a separate question from this primitive vitalism you espouse.
>>
>> IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT, life
>> can be considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien movie.
>
> Whenever you start a sentence with "IOW", I know it's going to be a
> nonsensical strawman.
Ok, please define the human type of life.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
> In article <OqMIk.48051$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>> (M)-adman wrote:
>>>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>>>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>>>
>>>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must
>>>> have been an element that was added to non living matter that
>>>> annimates the non-living matter into a state of living matter that
>>>> we call life. Also from a creation standpoint i think it was a
>>>> creator that placed this element into this world. I use the word
>>>> element as in a substance, such as one of four substances, earth,
>>>> air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative grounds
>>>> there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
>>>> non-living matter life.
>>>
>>> That's nice. Have you looked at a periodic table lately? Oddly,
>>> there are no boxes for earth, air, fire, or water. Instead of 4 or 5
>>> elements there are something over a hundred. Your medieval biology
>>> is no better than your medieval atomic physics.
>>
>> My reference is straight out of a (modern day) dictionary for the
>> word "element".
>
> I note that you didn't include the citation and that you ignored the
> other meanings. So this means you're playing more word games.
That would be true if my intent was to decieve. But i clearly listed how i
was using the word.
I said above: " I use the word element as in a substance, *SUCH AS* one of
four substances (emp.added)
6. one of the substances, usually earth, water, air, and fire,
formerly regarded as constituting the material universe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/element
Can we move on now? Because I Cleary gave my audience a definition of how I
was using the word.
>
>>>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
>>>> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
>>>> matter?
>>>
>>> No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from
>>> non-living matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems
>>> that maintain themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by running
>>> energy through the system. It's a process, not a condition of
>>> matter.
>>
>> uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can achieve
>> thought, emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn.
>
> Word games again.
Contrary, Lack of answer.
Can a property achieve thought, emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn?
f the answer is "No" then a property fails as a description and is not word
games but fact.
>
>> (except in your case of course)
>
> Be nice.
ok.
>>> And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the in
>>> vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
>>
>> Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it call
>> it's beaker "mommie"?
>
> (It's is a contraction of it is. You want the possessive form of it,
> which is its.) In answer to your straw-man question, no.
How that a straw-man? Did vitro synthesis define human life as we know it?
Human life includes the parameters of thinking and emotion. Therefore there
was no strawman because he brought up vitro synthesis; and in return i had a
reasonable question at that point.
>
>>> Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second question
>>> is meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life emerged. But
>>> that's a separate question from this primitive vitalism you espouse.
>>
>> IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT, life
>> can be considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien movie.
>
> That's an unwarranted conclusion.
Can you define life then? Which was the original question if we are to stay
on track. I put forth an hypothesis that there is an element that we do not
understand involved. (see original post for clarification). Can you put
forth an hypothesis? Obviously not since your focus is on [non-existent]
"silly word games, immature conclusions and insults".
>
>> ok
>
> Okay. In this post you have descended into silly word games, immature
> conclusions, and personal insults. You should give up before you
> completely self-destruct.
pfffttt! And i have clearly shown you to be wrong on these and your other
counts in this post.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
> In article <aAIIk.47574$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>
>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
>> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates
>> the non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call
>> life.
>
> Well, that was redundantly worded with extra words and unnecessary
> repetition. (Animates means putting life in.)
>
> There's a problem at the very start, though: you start "From a
> creation standpoint." This means you are predisposed to try to find an
> explanation that is in accord with the story of Genesis, and which
> will preclude humans from ever replicating abiogenesis. What you're
> doing is not scientific in the strict sense.
You must be or have the mentality of an english-lit 101 teacher. NOTHING is
ever worded good enough for you.
>
>> Also from a creation
>> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into
>> this world.
>
> And that pretty much seals it. You cannot come up with a scientific
> experiment that would verify the existence or nonexistence of that
> creator.
The experiment happens every day. Birth.
>
>> I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
>> substances, earth, air, fire, or water.
>
> You've got to be kidding. Snurri Sturluson tells us that the four
> elements are ice, water, earth, and fire. Those are obvious. What's
> this air thing? Other than as metaphors for states of matter (solid,
> liquid, gaseous, plasma), do you seriously believe that the four
> elements proposed by various Greek philosophers, whose asses the
> Vikings could kick any day, have any relevance in modern science?
>
> So you think life is a substance. Can you describe it in terms of a
> modern chemical understanding of matter? You know, the one in which
> the elements are hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon,
> nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, neon, etc?
>
I do not see YOU attempting an hypothesis. Yes, I think there is a substance
that we have not yet discovered that animates [as well as organizes]
non-living matter into life as we know it. We did not know the atom existed
at one time either.
>> I assume by hypothesis on tentative
>> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that
>> gives non-living matter life.
>>
>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
>> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
>> matter?
>
> People have been telling you for several days now, but you apparently
> haven't paid any attention.
>
> First, there's no detectable difference between the atoms in
> non-living matter and atoms of the same chemical elements in living
> matter. Well, except for the C14 thing, but that's an effect of life,
> not a cause.
Yet here we are. We walk, we talk, we think, we feel, we have emotions,
instainct. I think there is an element not yet discovered involved in the
processes of life. If you do not LIKE the word element then substitute the
word for X.
>
> Second, chemical elements can combine into all sorts of complex
> structures. If conditions are right, a mix of substances can
> self-organize into dynamically stable configurations. It is not
> *known* precisely by what process life emerged from chemical muck;
> scientists cleverer than I are working on it.
So you are not qualified by any stretch of the imagination to say either way
if there is or is not another element involved.
John Harshman
I think the 5-element scheme is quite appropriate for your paleolithic
musings. Whatever you call it, there is no X. And this should be obvious
to anyone who knows anything about biology, though it perhaps shouldn't
be obvious to you.
Are viruses alive? Are bacteria? If the former are not but the latter
are, what's the essential (in several possible senses) difference?
>>>>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
>>>>> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
>>>>> matter?
>>>> No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from
>>>> non-living matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems
>>>> that maintain themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by running
>>>> energy through the system. It's a process, not a condition of
>>>> matter.
>>> uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can achieve
>>> thought, emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn. (except in your
>>> case of course)
>> Yes, I do believe that, and it should be obvious to anyone who knows
>> anything about biology. There is no mysterious life principle. Life
>> is a product of physical processes. Vitalism died in the 19th century.
>
> Nonsense. But for shitz-n-gigglez, where did this process begin? What or who
> orginated the pathways? Why can science not duplicate this process? What is
> the name of the process? Can it be observed without matter?
1. On earth, presumably.
2. I don't know, depending on which pathways you're talking about.
3. Give it a few years, depending on what you mean by duplicating the
process.
4. Life, as I've said already.
5. Not that we know of.
>>>> And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the in
>>>> vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
>>> Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it call
>>> it's beaker "mommie"?
>> No. What it showed is that organic compounds are no more special than
>> inorganic compounds. Most life doesn't think and feel or call anything
>> "mommie". And I can get replication in a test tube just by mixing and
>> heating a few molecules of the right sort (we call it PCR). You are
>> very confused.
>
> That would be you. Very confused. You are not describing life. You are
> describing a chemical reaction.
Life is a set of chemical reactions. Where have you been for the past
hundred-plus years?
>>>> Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second question
>>>> is meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life emerged. But
>>>> that's a separate question from this primitive vitalism you espouse.
>>> IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT, life
>>> can be considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien movie.
>> Whenever you start a sentence with "IOW", I know it's going to be a
>> nonsensical strawman.
>
> Ok, please define the human type of life.
Whenever you start a sentence, I know it's going to be nonsensical, and
often incoherent, as that one was. You try defining it so I have some
notion of what you were trying to say. I wouldn't think the human type
of life was distinct from the regular type.
John Harshman
But that definition makes no sense except in the context of pre-modern
philosophies that require every unknown thing to be a substance -- like
caloric, phlogiston, the vegetative soul, etc. I agree it's appropriate
for your paleozoic notions of science, but here in the 21st century it's
just silly.
>>>>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
>>>>> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
>>>>> matter?
>>>> No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from
>>>> non-living matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems
>>>> that maintain themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by running
>>>> energy through the system. It's a process, not a condition of
>>>> matter.
>>> uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can achieve
>>> thought, emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn.
>> Word games again.
>
> Contrary, Lack of answer.
No, it's word games. You have confused "life" with "living things". Life
is a property of living things. Life can't achieve thought, etc., but
living things can. Well, some of them can.
> Can a property achieve thought, emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn?
> f the answer is "No" then a property fails as a description and is not word
> games but fact.
No, it's word games.
>>> (except in your case of course)
>> Be nice.
>
> ok.
>
>>>> And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the in
>>>> vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
>>> Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it call
>>> it's beaker "mommie"?
>> (It's is a contraction of it is. You want the possessive form of it,
>> which is its.) In answer to your straw-man question, no.
>
> How that a straw-man? Did vitro synthesis define human life as we know it?
No. But you didn't ask about human life. You asked about life. Try to
pay attention to your own words.
> Human life includes the parameters of thinking and emotion. Therefore there
> was no strawman because he brought up vitro synthesis; and in return i had a
> reasonable question at that point.
The difference between "dead thing" and "live thing" has nothing to do
with thinking or emotion. Unless you think either that bacteria think
and have emotion, or that they aren't alive.
"Life" and "being human" are two quite different things. Would you agree?
>>>> Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second question
>>>> is meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life emerged. But
>>>> that's a separate question from this primitive vitalism you espouse.
>>> IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT, life
>>> can be considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien movie.
>> That's an unwarranted conclusion.
>
> Can you define life then? Which was the original question if we are to stay
> on track. I put forth an hypothesis that there is an element that we do not
> understand involved. (see original post for clarification). Can you put
> forth an hypothesis? Obviously not since your focus is on [non-existent]
> "silly word games, immature conclusions and insults".
Where did your hypothesis come from? Do you have any evidence for this
hypothesis?
>>> ok
>> Okay. In this post you have descended into silly word games, immature
>> conclusions, and personal insults. You should give up before you
>> completely self-destruct.
>
> pfffttt! And i have clearly shown you to be wrong on these and your other
> counts in this post.
You really need to pay attention to what you're saying, rather than what
you supposed you might have wanted to say. So far you aren't making much
sense.
Mark Isaak
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates the
> non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also
> from a creation standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this
> element into this world. I use the word element as in a substance, such
> as one of four substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by
> hypothesis on tentative grounds there is a 5th element that we have not
> discovered yet that gives non-living matter life.
The fifth element which goes with earth, air, fire, and water was called
quintessence, also known as aether (not to be confused with the compound
ether). Notice that I said "was." Nobody since the mediaeval alchemists
considered it an element, and it died completely in the 19th century.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
John Harshman
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:06:33 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
>
>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>
>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
>> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates the
>> non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also
>> from a creation standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this
>> element into this world. I use the word element as in a substance, such
>> as one of four substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by
>> hypothesis on tentative grounds there is a 5th element that we have not
>> discovered yet that gives non-living matter life.
>
> The fifth element
(not to be confused with the fifth elephant)
> which goes with earth, air, fire, and water was called
> quintessence, also known as aether (not to be confused with the compound
> ether). Notice that I said "was." Nobody since the mediaeval alchemists
> considered it an element, and it died completely in the 19th century.
Quite appropriate for Madman's sort of science, wouldn't you say?
Cory Albrecht
>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
>> living matter and non-living matter.
>>
>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
>> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
>> matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
>> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
>> world.
>
> we call it "noceum". (The stress is on the middle syllable.)
Is that like unobtanium?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> non-living matter life.
>
> to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
>
>
> thanks
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Do a Google for "vitalism", you dumbfuck.
Ohhhhhhh, you've already demonstrated that you don't know what
"vitalism" is. Just like you don't know the difference between
"Archaeoraptor" and "Archaeopteryx".
(snicker) (giggle) BWAA HA HA HA HA !!!!!
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Nashton
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> non-living matter life.
>
> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
> to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
>
> Your personal opinion will do also.
>
> thanks
This is a question best left to the philosophers, not the goons of t-o,
(don't get me wrong, there are many good people that dwell in these
parts, but the pitiful goons make a cesspool out of it), IMHO. Moreover,
this question of life being or not being an emergent property of matter
has baffled mankind and its thinkers for centuries and probable will for
a very long time to come.
I don't believe life is a question of simply adding a yet to be
discovered element into the mix, but rather the tip of a hierarchy of
organization of matter that produces beings that are aware and that,
more importantly, capable of producing copies of themselves.
Man happens to be at the top of the pyramid given his capacity of
reasoning and logic, not to mention his capacity to adhere to specific
moral codes. One can say that Man is the ultimate manifestation of
organization of matter, especially at the level of the CNS.
Of course, YMMV ;)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Man happens to be at the top of the pyramid
Throw yourself into the polar bear pen at the local zoo and see if
this is still true.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Yes, I think there is a substance
> that we have not yet discovered that animates [as well as organizes]
> non-living matter into life as we know it.
So you have now reached the 15th century level of scientific
understanding.
(snicker) (giggle)
Do you also think that heat is a substance called caloric?
BWAAA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element
Her name is "Leeloo".
I'm quite sure you won't get that joke.
Timberwoof
"Lee" <m...@darwin.ediacara.org> wrote:
> "Timberwoof" <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:timberwoof.spam-AC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
> > Lee, please set up your Google Groups settings to follow the traditional
> > quoting protocol. It is impossible to tell just by looking which words
> > are yours and which are Spintronic's.
> >
> > Because of that confusion, I'm not inclined to read the rest of your
> > article.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------
> Sorry about the confusion but I am not on Google Groups, rather I am using a
> Newsreader.
>
> This lack of separation happens occasionally although for what reason I
> don't know it is kind of random. In future if it looks like happening I will
> make some way of separating things though.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------
Maybe you could use a different newsreader than Outlook?
Timberwoof
<2e374ef4-3bbf-4b34...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
And of course Helenium is the element that accounts for beauty. It's
typically measured in milliHelens.
Timberwoof
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
I was looking for the table of elements from "Science Made Stupid" and
found this:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ElementsDoNotWorkThatWay
Ah. Found it. http://www.besse.at/sms/matter.html "The early alchemists
thought that there were only four kinds of matter, or elements - Earth,
Air, Fire and Water. "All of the different kinds of matter we see
around us were believed to come from mixtures of these four. While this
was a good start, four elements alone did not seem to porvide enough
diversity to account for all matter."
There's a cute diagram showing transitions between the four elements.
Air - Smog - Earth Air - Soda Water - Water Earth - Mud - Water Earth -
Bricks - Fire Water - Tequila - Fire
"Today we recognize far more elements than the ancients, and can
arrange them in a periodic table (below) to make them appear impressive
and hard to understand."
Timberwoof
"\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <aAIIk.47574$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> > "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >
> >> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
> >> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
> >>
> >> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
> >> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates
> >> the non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call
> >> life.
> >
> > Well, that was redundantly worded with extra words and unnecessary
> > repetition. (Animates means putting life in.)
> >
> > There's a problem at the very start, though: you start "From a
> > creation standpoint." This means you are predisposed to try to find an
> > explanation that is in accord with the story of Genesis, and which
> > will preclude humans from ever replicating abiogenesis. What you're
> > doing is not scientific in the strict sense.
>
> You must be or have the mentality of an english-lit 101 teacher. NOTHING is
> ever worded good enough for you.
Why, thank you! Did you pass E 101?
> >> Also from a creation
> >> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into
> >> this world.
> >
> > And that pretty much seals it. You cannot come up with a scientific
> > experiment that would verify the existence or nonexistence of that
> > creator.
>
> The experiment happens every day. Birth.
Now I'm gonna be your Chem 101 teacher. Write the lab report. Convince
me that God is necessary for that process.
> >> I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> >> substances, earth, air, fire, or water.
> >
> > You've got to be kidding. Snurri Sturluson tells us that the four
> > elements are ice, water, earth, and fire. Those are obvious. What's
> > this air thing? Other than as metaphors for states of matter (solid,
> > liquid, gaseous, plasma), do you seriously believe that the four
> > elements proposed by various Greek philosophers, whose asses the
> > Vikings could kick any day, have any relevance in modern science?
> >
> > So you think life is a substance. Can you describe it in terms of a
> > modern chemical understanding of matter? You know, the one in which
> > the elements are hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon,
> > nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, neon, etc?
> >
>
> I do not see YOU attempting an hypothesis.
I'm not a biologist. I trust biologists to come up with better
hypotheses than I can. (Do you pronounce the word "eye pothesis"?)
> Yes, I think there is a substance
> that we have not yet discovered that animates [as well as organizes]
> non-living matter into life as we know it.
So which is it ... God or the substance? How come no physical experiment
has ever confirmed the existence of either?
> We did not know the atom existed
> at one time either.
We thought that aether and Phlogiston existed, too.
> >> I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> >> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that
> >> gives non-living matter life.
> >>
> >> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
> >> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
> >> matter?
> >
> > People have been telling you for several days now, but you apparently
> > haven't paid any attention.
> >
> > First, there's no detectable difference between the atoms in
> > non-living matter and atoms of the same chemical elements in living
> > matter. Well, except for the C14 thing, but that's an effect of life,
> > not a cause.
>
> Yet here we are. We walk, we talk, we think, we feel, we have emotions,
> instainct. I think there is an element not yet discovered involved in the
> processes of life. If you do not LIKE the word element then substitute the
> word for X.
Some substance ... you're not even clear enough to describe any of the
properties of the substance that would give anyone a hint about how to
go looking for it.
> > Second, chemical elements can combine into all sorts of complex
> > structures. If conditions are right, a mix of substances can
> > self-organize into dynamically stable configurations. It is not
> > *known* precisely by what process life emerged from chemical muck;
> > scientists cleverer than I are working on it.
>
> So you are not qualified by any stretch of the imagination to say either way
> if there is or is not another element involved.
Actually, I am more qualified than you are. My understanding of the
nature of matter is one or two centuries more advanced than yours. And
your conclusion doesn't obviously follow from what I said.
Ron O
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> non-living matter life.
>
> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it compares
> to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living matter?
>
>
> thanks
> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Your opinion never amounted to anything.
Look up vitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
What are the other elements of this hierarchy? Do rocks come above or
below clouds?
> that produces beings that are aware and that,
> more importantly, capable of producing copies of themselves.
Wouldn't you say that very few of the beings that are capable of
producing copies of themselves are aware?
> Man happens to be at the top of the pyramid given his capacity of
> reasoning and logic, not to mention his capacity to adhere to specific
> moral codes.
Not to mention his capacity for assigning himself a position in any
imaginary hierarchy.
> One can say that Man is the ultimate manifestation of
> organization of matter, especially at the level of the CNS.
One can indeed, if one is feeling smug.
> Of course, YMMV ;)
>
spintronic
> "spintronic" <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Hmm, you seem to have formed an "association".
>
> (regular shape = complex code)
>
> Again do you have a citation?
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice
Lol. The article starts with "DID", and goes on to explain a "non-
documented"
"non-verefied", experimemnt spanning 30 years, that nobody knew about
apart
from one man.
Who also almost 100% contaminated his little experiment 30 years ago.
> > cells are a little more complex being rather like little nano-factories
> > but most estimates predict that a fully working synthetic cell should
> > be doing backflips across some Petri dish within 10 years.
>
> Hmm.
>
> Would they be "copies"?
>
> 1. Nasa are working on creating artificial cell membranes from Polymersomes,
> possible uses include 'storable' blood for medical emergencies during space
> travel. No not copies.
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29may_polymersomes.htm
Like a blood cell is incapable of self replication.
> The function of other cell parts like mitocondrian, vacuoles etc is well
> understood so synthesising them is unlikely to pose too many problems to be
> do-able.
I agree.
> > Reasonable hypotheses show that other factors could produce molecules
> > complex enough and in enough numbers over time to initiate life
I don't agree.
> > My personal opinion is that artificial life will be created in the
> > laboratory within the next decade.
>
> Mine is in the next 2 months.
>
>> > After god believers get over the shock hopefully they won't start
>> > dabbling in matters that no holy book on earth makes provision for.
>
> > No. No shock, no dabbling.
>
> > We leave stupidity to create it's own undoing.
>
> Yes very true, you certainly do, four centuries was it before Galileo got a
> much deserved apology?
Nothing to do with me. How many centuries do you believe man will last
when a child can make a deadly pathogen in their kitchen?
> > > Artificial cells may have great uses from cleaning up pollution to
> > > providing
> > > clean fuels and the scientist that create them will be richer than a pope
> > > but there will also be a need to use such technology wisely.
>
> > Hmm, most of this can be done (by experts) at a cost of $1000 in a
> > kitchen.
> > Wether someone get rich is a matter of debate, and there is no way
> > of preventing this technology from being utilised by any loon ball
> > with half a brain cell.
>
> > All the top infectious agent's can be ordered by e-bay.
>
> If the top infectious agents are so freely available it would seem a waste
> of time and resources to create anymore. Besides, most people I think would
> prefer to be remembered for posterity as an Alexander Fleming rather than a
> Fritz Haber.
I don't think you understand. Some people (nuts) don't care how they
are
remembered. They think they will retire with a 100 virgins.
> The leader in the field of artificial life research is Craig Ventnor and
> according to this article the money from green fuels woulds make him into
> dollar trillionare.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2010049.ece
The problem is patenting "novel" genes that produce fuel.
There could turn out to be possibly millions of ways to repeat the
same results.
While whoever gets there first has a head start, they will not have a
monopoly.
> The present day argument against the creation of artificial life is more or
> less analogous to someone asking the Wright brothers if their first creation
> was an aircraft or not because it could not fly faster than sound.
I'd say it is more like asking them "is it a bird"?
Obviously it wasn't.
Although an aerofoil is a copy of birds, the plane isn't.
The only way you can claim non-plaigerism with an artificial cell, is
if you don't
use D.N.A, R.N.A, amino acids, or anythin else that makes a living
cell.
raven1
wrote:
>
>Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
>living matter and non-living matter.
>
>From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
>element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
>matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
>standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
>world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
>substances, earth, air, fire, or water.
Do you also include phlogiston, or the aether?
John Harshman
> On Oct 13, 10:06 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>
> I assume by hypothesis on tentative
>> grounds there is a 5th element
>
>
> Her name is "Leeloo".
>
> I'm quite sure you won't get that joke.
You're a brave man to admit publically to having seen that movie. How
about Battle Beyond the Stars, or Battlefield Earth?
Nashton
>
>
>> Man happens to be at the top of the pyramid
>
>
> Throw yourself into the polar bear pen at the local zoo and see if
> this is still true.
Culture is also another attribute of Man. An intelligent person that
would really have some perverted need to join a wild animal in it cage,
would probably protect himself either by means of a weapon or some kind
of physical protection, wouldn't you think?
Steven L.
> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> living matter and non-living matter.
>
> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> matter into a state of living matter that we call life.
That was, in fact, a popular theory prior to the 19th century, called
"vitalism." There was supposed to be some kind of "vital force" or
"elan vital" which made living matter different from non-living matter.
For a long time, it was thought that organic compounds could not be
synthesized in the laboratory because they lacked that vital force.
(That was the original meaning of "organic," not "carbon-based" as it is
today.) But then, in 1828, Wohler synthesized urea in the laboratory,
proving that organic compounds were not fundamentally different from
inorganic compounds. However, some scientists, including Louis Pasteur,
continued to believe in some form of vitalism as late as the late 19th
century.
Note also that the Vienna psychoanalytic school theorized neurosis in
ways involving the spread of "nervous energy" and whatnot, which could
be thought of as a vitalist idea.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Mark VandeWettering
I don't think it's a coincidence that Bruce Willis stars in the two
greatest achievements of modern cinema: "The Fifth Element" and the epic
"Hudson Hawk".
Battle Beyond the Stars is of course Roger Corman's greatest film.
"Does your species having kissing?"
Immortal.
Mark
Nashton
Excellent question. I believe it's a matter of organizational
complexity. I'd say they are rather similar, if one were to consider
this as a criterion.
>
>> that produces beings that are aware and that, more importantly,
>> capable of producing copies of themselves.
>
> Wouldn't you say that very few of the beings that are capable of
> producing copies of themselves are aware?
I believe that it's not a matter of whether they are aware, but the
temporal span of such awareness. I do believe that sentience is a
rudimentary form of awareness and I suppose we will never quite know the
answer to your question because it is existentially impossible to
experience the awareness or lack thereof of other beings.
>
>> Man happens to be at the top of the pyramid given his capacity of
>> reasoning and logic, not to mention his capacity to adhere to specific
>> moral codes.
>
> Not to mention his capacity for assigning himself a position in any
> imaginary hierarchy.
Again, this depends on whether you consider the fact that man can parse
through enormous amounts of data and arrive at conclusions that have the
potential to alter his life. O)r the fact that Man can manipulate his
environment to a degree that no other animal is capable of. Put a frog
on the Moon and see if it survives for more than 5 seconds, for example.
In that sense, I believe that Man's supposition that he is on the top of
the hierarchy, is more than amply justified.
>
>> One can say that Man is the ultimate manifestation of organization of
>> matter, especially at the level of the CNS.
>
> One can indeed, if one is feeling smug.
When I observe a polar bear painting something equivalent to a Mona Lisa
or building the Parthenon and actually admiring the chef d'oeuvre, I
will be more than happy to change my mind.
>
>> Of course, YMMV ;)
>>
>
Shane
Defined as the amount of beauty required to launch one ship.
Steven L.
> On Oct 13, 10:06 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
>> living matter and non-living matter.
>>
>> element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
>> matter into a state of living matter that we call life.
>
> there's a yet-undetected "element" that will someday be added to the
> periodic table.
>
> Unfortunately "vitalism" has proven sterile as a science, so unless yo
> have a novel idea, you have to just take it on faith as the rest of us
> theists do.
Alternative medicine involves a lot of vitalist ideas.
Reiki, for example, claims that there is a universal life force or
"spiritual energy" which can be used for healing. A Reiki master is
supposed to broadcast this healing energy from his hands to the sick person.
Mind-body theories, which attempt to use psychological techniques like
visualization and positive thinking for healing physical illness, can
also be thought of as vitalism. A well-known exposition is in "Love,
Medicine, and Miracles," by Dr. Bernie Siegel. He claimed that his
cancer patients who kept a positive attitude, possessed strong will
power, and used visualization and other mental techniques, achieved
better treatment outcomes. Now there may be a scientific explanation
for that, involving the generation of endorphins and various hormones
and relieving stress on the immune system; but AFAIK, Dr. Siegel never
bothered to investigate that.
Steven L.
The aether theory survived the longest of all these dualistic theories.
Even the great James Clerk Maxwell believed in the existence of the
aether as the medium through which electromagnetism propagated. And
Hendrik Lorentz continued to cling to his own aether theory for some
years even after Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.
John Harshman
What about scissors and paper? Now I'd say that paper would be above
rocks, and that scissors are above paper. But it also seems that rocks
are above scissors. Is that a circular argument?
>>> that produces beings that are aware and that, more importantly,
>>> capable of producing copies of themselves.
>>
>> Wouldn't you say that very few of the beings that are capable of
>> producing copies of themselves are aware?
>
> I believe that it's not a matter of whether they are aware, but the
> temporal span of such awareness. I do believe that sentience is a
> rudimentary form of awareness and I suppose we will never quite know the
> answer to your question because it is existentially impossible to
> experience the awareness or lack thereof of other beings.
Oh, I dunno. I think you experience the lack thereof fairly often.
>>> Man happens to be at the top of the pyramid given his capacity of
>>> reasoning and logic, not to mention his capacity to adhere to
>>> specific moral codes.
>>
>> Not to mention his capacity for assigning himself a position in any
>> imaginary hierarchy.
>
> Again, this depends on whether you consider the fact that man can parse
> through enormous amounts of data and arrive at conclusions that have the
> potential to alter his life. O)r the fact that Man can manipulate his
> environment to a degree that no other animal is capable of. Put a frog
> on the Moon and see if it survives for more than 5 seconds, for example.
I bet the frog lasts longer than you do.
> In that sense, I believe that Man's supposition that he is on the top of
> the hierarchy, is more than amply justified.
Well, no other species is going to argue with you. So they must agree.
>>> One can say that Man is the ultimate manifestation of organization of
>>> matter, especially at the level of the CNS.
>>
>> One can indeed, if one is feeling smug.
>
> When I observe a polar bear painting something equivalent to a Mona Lisa
> or building the Parthenon and actually admiring the chef d'oeuvre, I
> will be more than happy to change my mind.
Not in my experience, you wouldn't be.
John Harshman
> On 2008-10-14, John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 10:06 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume by hypothesis on tentative
>>>> grounds there is a 5th element
>>>
>>> Her name is "Leeloo".
>>>
>>> I'm quite sure you won't get that joke.
>> You're a brave man to admit publically to having seen that movie. How
>> about Battle Beyond the Stars, or Battlefield Earth?
>
> I don't think it's a coincidence that Bruce Willis stars in the two
> greatest achievements of modern cinema: "The Fifth Element" and the epic
> "Hudson Hawk".
Nonsense. He doesn't even have a cameo in Gigli.
heekster
Displacement measured in troy oz., no doubt.
(M)-adman
ouch!
reality at it's best.
heekster
You are in error, sir, by an order of magnitude. It should say, "one
or two millenia".
HTH
(M)-adman
> (M)-adman wrote:
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>> (M)-adman wrote:
>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> (M)-adman wrote:
>>>>>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>>>>>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must
>>>>>> have been an element that was added to non living matter that
>>>>>> annimates the non-living matter into a state of living matter
>>>>>> was a creator that placed this element into this world. I use
>>>>>> the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
>>>>>> on tentative grounds there is a 5th element that we have not
>>>>>> discovered yet that gives non-living matter life.
>>>>> there are no boxes for earth, air, fire, or water. Instead of 4
>>>>> or 5 elements there are something over a hundred. Your medieval
>>>>> biology is no better than your medieval atomic physics.
>>>> My reference is straight out of a (modern day) dictionary for the
>>>> word "element".
>>> Your modern day dictionary is citing an ancient meaning. Or didn't
>>> you notice? Calling water, etc. an element is just silly. Calling
>>> fire a substance is likewise silly. I agree that a silly meaning is
>>> appropriate for your search for the elan vital, though.
>>
>> Semantics. What would you prefer to call X that animates non living
>> matter?
>
> I think the 5-element scheme is quite appropriate for your paleolithic
> musings. Whatever you call it, there is no X. And this should be
> obvious to anyone who knows anything about biology, though it perhaps
> shouldn't be obvious to you.
>
> Are viruses alive? Are bacteria? If the former are not but the latter
> are, what's the essential (in several possible senses) difference?
You do not know for sure if a virus is alive or nat do you?
A virus replicates. It survives. THAT suggest life.
You cannot even offer an hypothesis for life.
>
>>>>>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how
>>>>>> it compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from
>>>>>> non-living matter?
>>>>> No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from
>>>>> non-living matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems
>>>>> that maintain themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by
>>>>> running energy through the system. It's a process, not a
>>>>> condition of matter.
>>>> uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can achieve
>>>> thought, emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn. (except in
>>>> your case of course)
>>> Yes, I do believe that, and it should be obvious to anyone who knows
>>> anything about biology. There is no mysterious life principle. Life
>>> is a product of physical processes. Vitalism died in the 19th
>>> century.
>>
>> Nonsense. But for shitz-n-gigglez, where did this process begin?
>> What or who orginated the pathways? Why can science not duplicate
>> this process? What is the name of the process? Can it be observed
>> without matter?
>
> 1. On earth, presumably.
Presumption 1
> 2. I don't know, depending on which pathways you're talking about.
excuse 1
> 3. Give it a few years, depending on what you mean by duplicating the
> process.
presunption 2
> 4. Life, as I've said already.
presumption 3
> 5. Not that we know of.
excuse 2
So far, no home run. It is doubtful you can get to first base. You cannot
even run
>
>>>>> And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the
>>>>> in vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
>>>> Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it call
>>>> it's beaker "mommie"?
>>> No. What it showed is that organic compounds are no more special
>>> than inorganic compounds. Most life doesn't think and feel or call
>>> anything "mommie". And I can get replication in a test tube just by
>>> mixing and heating a few molecules of the right sort (we call it
>>> PCR). You are very confused.
>>
>> That would be you. Very confused. You are not describing life. You
>> are describing a chemical reaction.
>
> Life is a set of chemical reactions. Where have you been for the past
> hundred-plus years?
And you offer an abundence of proof that says i am wrong. NOT!
But, again, just for shitz-n-gigglez, WHY has the rest of the world not
bought this idea you present that is "hundred-plus years" years old? Because
it is bullshit. THATS why.
>
>>>>> Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second
>>>>> question is meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life
>>>>> emerged. But that's a separate question from this primitive
>>>>> vitalism you espouse.
>>>> IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT, life
>>>> can be considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien movie.
>>> Whenever you start a sentence with "IOW", I know it's going to be a
>>> nonsensical strawman.
>>
>> Ok, please define the human type of life.
>
> Whenever you start a sentence, I know it's going to be nonsensical,
> and often incoherent, as that one was. You try defining it so I have
> some notion of what you were trying to say. I wouldn't think the
> human type of life was distinct from the regular type.
So you cannot define human life.
Why is that?
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
My List of confirmed liers
1) J.J. O'Shea
Don't fret!! YOU can be added to the list too!
(M)-adman
>>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>>
>>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must
>>> have been an element that was added to non living matter that
>>> annimates the non-living matter into a state of living matter that
>>> we call life. Also from a creation standpoint i think it was a
>>> creator that placed this element into this world.
>>
>> we call it "noceum". (The stress is on the middle syllable.)
>
> Is that like unobtanium?
Cory Cory.... you read too much fiction.
No See Them
"no-ce-um"
as in: no-see-um
get it?
gosh you can be dence as a rock at times
(M)-adman
> In article <1LPIk.49503$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>> In article <aAIIk.47574$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>>> "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>>>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>>>
>>>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must
>>>> have been an element that was added to non living matter that
>>>> annimates the non-living matter into a state of living matter that
>>>> we call life.
>>>
>>> Well, that was redundantly worded with extra words and unnecessary
>>> repetition. (Animates means putting life in.)
>>>
>>> There's a problem at the very start, though: you start "From a
>>> creation standpoint." This means you are predisposed to try to find
>>> an explanation that is in accord with the story of Genesis, and
>>> which will preclude humans from ever replicating abiogenesis. What
>>> you're doing is not scientific in the strict sense.
>>
>> You must be or have the mentality of an english-lit 101 teacher.
>> NOTHING is ever worded good enough for you.
>
> Why, thank you! Did you pass E 101?
Twice as a matter of fact [big toothy smile]
>
>>>> Also from a creation
>>>> standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into
>>>> this world.
>>>
>>> And that pretty much seals it. You cannot come up with a scientific
>>> experiment that would verify the existence or nonexistence of that
>>> creator.
>>
>> The experiment happens every day. Birth.
>
> Now I'm gonna be your Chem 101 teacher. Write the lab report. Convince
> me that God is necessary for that process.
God started the process. No further involvment needed.
Logic 101
>
>>>> I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
>>>> substances, earth, air, fire, or water.
>>>
>>> You've got to be kidding. Snurri Sturluson tells us that the four
>>> elements are ice, water, earth, and fire. Those are obvious. What's
>>> this air thing? Other than as metaphors for states of matter (solid,
>>> liquid, gaseous, plasma), do you seriously believe that the four
>>> elements proposed by various Greek philosophers, whose asses the
>>> Vikings could kick any day, have any relevance in modern science?
>>>
>>> So you think life is a substance. Can you describe it in terms of a
>>> modern chemical understanding of matter? You know, the one in which
>>> the elements are hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron,
>>> carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, neon, etc?
>>>
>>
>> I do not see YOU attempting an hypothesis.
>
> I'm not a biologist. I trust biologists to come up with better
> hypotheses than I can. (Do you pronounce the word "eye pothesis"?)
ha! no, High-potheses. <G>
>> Yes, I think there is a substance
>> that we have not yet discovered that animates [as well as organizes]
>> non-living matter into life as we know it.
>
> So which is it ... God or the substance? How come no physical
> experiment has ever confirmed the existence of either?
In the begining, God MADE THE SUBSTANCE,
See how easy this is? The bible gives us hints.
>
>> We did not know the atom existed
>> at one time either.
>
> We thought that aether and Phlogiston existed, too.
Analogy 101.
You need a refresher course.
>
>>>> I assume by hypothesis on tentative
>>>> grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that
>>>> gives non-living matter life.
>>>>
>>>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
>>>> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
>>>> matter?
>>>
>>> People have been telling you for several days now, but you
>>> apparently haven't paid any attention.
>>>
>>> First, there's no detectable difference between the atoms in
>>> non-living matter and atoms of the same chemical elements in living
>>> matter. Well, except for the C14 thing, but that's an effect of
>>> life, not a cause.
>>
>> Yet here we are. We walk, we talk, we think, we feel, we have
>> emotions, instainct. I think there is an element not yet discovered
>> involved in the processes of life. If you do not LIKE the word
>> element then substitute the word for X.
>
> Some substance ... you're not even clear enough to describe any of the
> properties of the substance that would give anyone a hint about how to
> go looking for it.
You are SOOO smart.
You should be able to tell US.
First, I would look for an energy source that we do not understand yet.
Opps! We can't. We cannot figure a way out of fossil fuels as energy yet!
THAT is how smart our science is. Are you seeing the big picture yet?
>
>>> Second, chemical elements can combine into all sorts of complex
>>> structures. If conditions are right, a mix of substances can
>>> self-organize into dynamically stable configurations. It is not
>>> *known* precisely by what process life emerged from chemical muck;
>>> scientists cleverer than I are working on it.
>>
>> So you are not qualified by any stretch of the imagination to say
>> either way if there is or is not another element involved.
>
> Actually, I am more qualified than you are.
In dreams maybe.
< My understanding of the
> nature of matter is one or two centuries more advanced than yours.
And yet you cannot figure out the simplest of things. WHY is THAT?
> And
> your conclusion doesn't obviously follow from what I said.
Good. Because your conclusion is.. well, to be frank. It is wrong.
(M)-adman
> (M)-adman wrote:
>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>
>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
>> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates
>> the non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call
>> placed this element into this world. I use the word element as in a
>> substance, such as one of four substances, earth, air, fire, or
>> element that we have not discovered yet that gives non-living matter
>> life. Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how it
>> compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from non-living
>>
>> thanks
>
> This is a question best left to the philosophers, not the goons of
> t-o, (don't get me wrong, there are many good people that dwell in
> these parts, but the pitiful goons make a cesspool out of it), IMHO.
> Moreover, this question of life being or not being an emergent
> property of matter has baffled mankind and its thinkers for centuries
> and probable will for a very long time to come.
A rather intelligent statement imho.
>
> I don't believe life is a question of simply adding a yet to be
> discovered element into the mix, but rather the tip of a hierarchy of
> organization of matter that produces beings that are aware and that,
> more importantly, capable of producing copies of themselves.
> Man happens to be at the top of the pyramid given his capacity of
> reasoning and logic, not to mention his capacity to adhere to specific
> moral codes. One can say that Man is the ultimate manifestation of
> organization of matter, especially at the level of the CNS.
>
> Of course, YMMV ;)
You leave no room in your hypothesis for an element unknown to man to have
caused this effect on matter we call life?
How odd.
My gas milage sucks BTW :-D
(M)-adman
Your extra-curricula links never amount to much.
You sir, are a legend in your own time.. errrr.... mind.
medical philosophies notwithstanding.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Timberwoof
heekster <heek...@iwxt.net> wrote:
I was trying to be charitable.
Timberwoof
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 10:06 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> >> grounds there is a 5th element
> >
> >
> > Her name is "Leeloo".
> >
> > I'm quite sure you won't get that joke.
>
> You're a brave man to admit publically to having seen that movie.
What's wrong with that movie? It's fun, mindless entertainment that you
don't have to turn off your moral filters to watch.
> How
> about Battle Beyond the Stars, or Battlefield Earth?
Neither.
(M)-adman
The vitalist idea is moot.
It has never been tested, observed, or proven.
And urea , BTW, is a substance that works against life when it is in
abundance, and it works against life when there is a shortage. It takes an
already existing life process to balance urea.
Timberwoof
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 8:41 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Man happens to be at the top of the pyramid
> >
> >
> > Throw yourself into the polar bear pen at the local zoo and see if
> > this is still true.
>
> Culture is also another attribute of Man.
That's arrogant.
Speaking of polar bears... An important difference between polar bears
and grizzly bears is their behavior. They can interbreed, but it is the
mother that teaches the young what to do. So an important difference
between polar bears and grizzlies is ... cultural. So although the polar
bear species might survive by interbreeding with grizzlies, polar bear
culture is being lost.
Same thing with wolves. When naturalists capture them to tag then and
fit them with radio collars, they're not terribly gentle. They want the
wolves to think we're assholes, so they'll stay away from us ... and
teach their young.
Cats have to learn to hunt. They learn it from the mother.
I'm not sure what the difference is between that sort of thing and what
we humans do. Ours is just somewhat more complicated.
> An intelligent person that
> would really have some perverted need to join a wild animal in it cage,
> would probably protect himself either by means of a weapon or some kind
> of physical protection, wouldn't you think?
No, I would not think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Sousa
John Harshman
It's a matter of definition. Viruses are in the gray area between life
and non-life, which goes to show that there is no "5th element" at work.
> A virus replicates. It survives. THAT suggest life.
A virus doesn't replicate. It gets replicated. The term "survives" begs
the question.
> You cannot even offer an hypothesis for life.
And you cannot even be coherent.
>>>>>>> Does science have a defination of what is living-matter is, how
>>>>>>> it compares to non-living matter, and how life emerged from
>>>>>>> non-living matter?
>>>>>> No. There is no such thing as living matter, as distinct from
>>>>>> non-living matter. Life is a property of certain complex systems
>>>>>> that maintain themselves far outside chemical equilibrium by
>>>>>> running energy through the system. It's a process, not a
>>>>>> condition of matter.
>>>>> uhh... highly unlikely. Unless.. you believe a property can achieve
>>>>> thought, emotion, instinct, and an ability to learn. (except in
>>>>> your case of course)
>>>> Yes, I do believe that, and it should be obvious to anyone who knows
>>>> anything about biology. There is no mysterious life principle. Life
>>>> is a product of physical processes. Vitalism died in the 19th
>>>> century.
>>> Nonsense. But for shitz-n-gigglez, where did this process begin?
>>> What or who orginated the pathways? Why can science not duplicate
>>> this process? What is the name of the process? Can it be observed
>>> without matter?
>> 1. On earth, presumably.
>
> Presumption 1
Did you have another idea?
>> 2. I don't know, depending on which pathways you're talking about.
>
> excuse 1
>
>> 3. Give it a few years, depending on what you mean by duplicating the
>> process.
>
> presunption 2
>
>> 4. Life, as I've said already.
>
> presumption 3
>
>> 5. Not that we know of.
>
> excuse 2
>
> So far, no home run. It is doubtful you can get to first base. You cannot
> even run
And you are boring.
>>>>>> And it seems to me this was settled fairly well in 1828, with the
>>>>>> in vitro synthesis of the first organic compound.
>>>>> Did it replicate on it's own? Can it think and feel? Did it call
>>>>> it's beaker "mommie"?
>>>> No. What it showed is that organic compounds are no more special
>>>> than inorganic compounds. Most life doesn't think and feel or call
>>>> anything "mommie". And I can get replication in a test tube just by
>>>> mixing and heating a few molecules of the right sort (we call it
>>>> PCR). You are very confused.
>>> That would be you. Very confused. You are not describing life. You
>>> are describing a chemical reaction.
>> Life is a set of chemical reactions. Where have you been for the past
>> hundred-plus years?
>
> And you offer an abundence of proof that says i am wrong. NOT!
> But, again, just for shitz-n-gigglez, WHY has the rest of the world not
> bought this idea you present that is "hundred-plus years" years old? Because
> it is bullshit. THATS why.
Well, that was a powerful argument.
>>>>>> Since there is no such thing as living matter, your second
>>>>>> question is meaningless. As for the third, I don't know how life
>>>>>> emerged. But that's a separate question from this primitive
>>>>>> vitalism you espouse.
>>>>> IOW you really do not know if anything is alive or not. BUT, life
>>>>> can be considered nothing more then a bad frankinstien movie.
>>>> Whenever you start a sentence with "IOW", I know it's going to be a
>>>> nonsensical strawman.
>>> Ok, please define the human type of life.
>> Whenever you start a sentence, I know it's going to be nonsensical,
>> and often incoherent, as that one was. You try defining it so I have
>> some notion of what you were trying to say. I wouldn't think the
>> human type of life was distinct from the regular type.
>
> So you cannot define human life.
>
> Why is that?
Because you're incoherent, and I can't tell what you are trying to ask
me to do.
Vend
wrote:
> (M)-adman wrote:
> > Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists regarding
> > living matter and non-living matter.
>
> > From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have been an
> > element that was added to non living matter that annimates the non-living
> > matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also from a creation
> > standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this element into this
> > world. I use the word element as in a substance, such as one of four
> > substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by hypothesis on tentative
> > grounds there is a 5th element that we have not discovered yet that gives
> > non-living matter life.
>
> That's nice. Have you looked at a periodic table lately? Oddly, there
> are no boxes for earth, air, fire, or water. Instead of 4 or 5 elements
> there are something over a hundred. Your medieval biology is no better
> than your medieval atomic physics.
Lee
"spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8f4e8e7-1ec1-4c12...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 7:06 pm, "Lee" <m...@darwin.ediacara.org> wrote:
>> "spintronic" <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>
>> Hmm, you seem to have formed an "association".
>>
>> (regular shape = complex code)
>>
>> Again do you have a citation?
>>
>> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice
>
> Lol. The article starts with "DID", and goes on to explain a "non-
> documented"
> "non-verefied", experimemnt spanning 30 years, that nobody knew about
> apart
> from one man.
>
> Who also almost 100% contaminated his little experiment 30 years ago.
You apparently missed the three words in the article 'tests later confirmed'
which also happened to be a uniformed resourse locator leading to this:
and some other related interesting links. As I stated when you implied that
I had canine qualities. 'It is an in depth article requiring carefull
reading'.
>> > cells are a little more complex being rather like little
>> > nano-factories
>> > but most estimates predict that a fully working synthetic cell should
>> > be doing backflips across some Petri dish within 10 years.
>>
>> Hmm.
>>
>> Would they be "copies"?
The original thread ask's 'has science defined what life actually is' so it
is not really relevent if examples of synthetic life are copies of naturally
occuring organisms. The question is, is there a 'spark of life' and can it
be initiated artificially from non living chemicals.
That would depend on many factors like if the child could also design a
working delivery system and fund the millions of dollars needed for research
or if the people of the time had the technology to quickly create a cure.
>> > > Artificial cells may have great uses from cleaning up pollution to
>> > > providing
>> > > clean fuels and the scientist that create them will be richer than a
>> > > pope
>> > > but there will also be a need to use such technology wisely.
>>
>> > Hmm, most of this can be done (by experts) at a cost of $1000 in a
>> > kitchen.
>> > Wether someone get rich is a matter of debate, and there is no way
>> > of preventing this technology from being utilised by any loon ball
>> > with half a brain cell.
>>
>> > All the top infectious agent's can be ordered by e-bay.
>>
>> If the top infectious agents are so freely available it would seem a
>> waste
>> of time and resources to create anymore. Besides, most people I think
>> would
>> prefer to be remembered for posterity as an Alexander Fleming rather than
>> a
>> Fritz Haber.
>
> I don't think you understand. Some people (nuts) don't care how they
> are
> remembered. They think they will retire with a 100 virgins.
The problem already exist with the President of Irans desire to posses
weapons grade nuclear materiels 'for strictly peacfull purposes'. In the
case of artificially created micro-organisms there is many questions that
need to be addressed both ethical and practicle and answers found before any
deployment of such technology is even considered.
>> The leader in the field of artificial life research is Craig Ventnor and
>> according to this article the money from green fuels woulds make him into
>> dollar trillionare.
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2010049.ece
>
> The problem is patenting "novel" genes that produce fuel.
>
> There could turn out to be possibly millions of ways to repeat the
> same results.
>
> While whoever gets there first has a head start, they will not have a
> monopoly.
>
>
>
>
>> The present day argument against the creation of artificial life is more
>> or
>> less analogous to someone asking the Wright brothers if their first
>> creation
>> was an aircraft or not because it could not fly faster than sound.
>
>
> I'd say it is more like asking them "is it a bird"?
>
> Obviously it wasn't.
>
> Although an aerofoil is a copy of birds, the plane isn't.
>
> The only way you can claim non-plaigerism with an artificial cell, is
> if you don't
> use D.N.A, R.N.A, amino acids, or anythin else that makes a living
> cell.
An example of an artificial cell not based on biological life would be the
great many entities that scientist use in computer programs that simulate
models of evolution and behaviour.
The evolutionary study 'creatures' as I understand it have all the
prerequisites of life (dependent on which criteria is used) and successfully
mimic living organisms.
The latter can be easily transposed into small robots to observe interaction
between individuals. Although they are limited in that a cockroach could
outthink them it is another approach to studying the origins of life.
The limiting factor in these examples is processing speed but scientist are
experimenting with ideas like quantum processors and introducing biological
components into chip circuitry so it is reasonable to assume that such
entities will become more 'lifelike' as computing technology allows faster
processing speeds.
Quantum computing:
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~taha/teaching/05F/210/news/2005_09_16.htm
Bio-computing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358822.stm
If you google 'ethics and artificial life' there is much discussion of the
topic amongst scientist which would indicate that breakthroughs in this
field are pretty much expected in the not too distant future that will
eventually render the Turing test obsolete.
Lee
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:yVTIk.41568$IB6....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> spintronic wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 7:06 pm, "Lee" <m...@darwin.ediacara.org> wrote:
>>> "spintronic" <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes very true, you certainly do, four centuries was it before
>>> Galileo got a much deserved apology?
>>
>>
>> Nothing to do with me. How many centuries do you believe man will last
>> when a child can make a deadly pathogen in their kitchen?
>
> ouch!
>
> reality at it's best.
There is an ever present possibility of naturally occurring pathogens, the
post WW1 flu epidemic killed more people (estimated 30 mill) than the actual
war. One of the major causes is believed to be the unprecedented amount of
infected servicemen returning home to various parts of the world thus
enabling the disease to spread on a global scale.
It could be surmised then that 110 years later that massive globalisation
and an exponential increase in world travel is a far greater threat of
causing a catastrophic pandemic than the chance of a child producing a
pathogen in a kitchen let alone creating a working delivery method and
funding it.
TomS
<pan.2008.10.13....@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak stated..."
>
>On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:06:33 -0500, (M)-adman wrote:
>
>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must have
>> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates the
>> non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call life. Also
>> from a creation standpoint i think it was a creator that placed this
>> element into this world. I use the word element as in a substance, such
>> as one of four substances, earth, air, fire, or water. I assume by
>> hypothesis on tentative grounds there is a 5th element that we have not
>> discovered yet that gives non-living matter life.
>
>quintessence, also known as aether (not to be confused with the compound
>ether). Notice that I said "was." Nobody since the mediaeval alchemists
>considered it an element, and it died completely in the 19th century.
Also, by the way, not to be confused with the "luminiferous ether",
the hypothetical substance, the substrate for the wave motions of
light.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Nashton
>>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
>>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>>>
>>> been an element that was added to non living matter that annimates
>>> the non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call
>>> life. Also from a creation standpoint i think it was a creator that
>>> placed this element into this world.
>> we call it "noceum". (The stress is on the middle syllable.)
>
>
> But at one time we could not see bacteria either.
There are many things we are incapable of perceiving and it doesn't mean
that they exist, so I agree with you there.
But, I don't think we will ever discover a substance that you could pour
on a rock, for example, and turn it into a living being.
Stuart
> Cory Albrecht wrote:
> > David Canzi wrote, on 2008-10-13 13:55:
> >> \(M\)-adman<g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >>> Recently an intresting question was posed only to creationists
> >>> regarding living matter and non-living matter.
>
> >>> From a creation standpoint, i take the position that there must
> >>> have been an element that was added to non living matter that
> >>> annimates the non-living matter into a state of living matter that
> >>> we call life. Also from a creation standpoint i think it was a
> >>> creator that placed this element into this world.
>
> >> If this new element doesn't already have a name, I propose that
> >> we call it "noceum". (The stress is on the middle syllable.)
>
> > Is that like unobtanium?
>
> Cory Cory.... you read too much fiction.
>
> No See Them
>
> "no-ce-um"
>
> as in: no-see-um
>
> get it?
he got it, schmuck.
You didn't.
LOL
Stuart
Boikat
Addledman was wearing his ignorantium foil helmet.
Boikat
north5
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:27:17 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article
> > "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> That would be Maxwellium. Or does that only account for
> >> electromagnetism?
>
> > And of course Helenium is the element that accounts for beauty. It's
> > typically measured in milliHelens.
>
> Defined as the amount of beauty required to launch one ship.
I'm afraid the milliHelen is an invalid unit. You can't put an SI
prefix on Troy units.
Al
John Wilkins
> > >> That would be Maxwellium. Or does that only account for
> > >> electromagnetism?
> >
> > > And of course Helenium is the element that accounts for beauty. It's
> > > typically measured in milliHelens.
> >
> > Defined as the amount of beauty required to launch one ship.
>
> I'm afraid the milliHelen is an invalid unit. You can't put an SI
> prefix on Troy units.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Therion Ware
wrote:
Snigger.
You are a very bad person.
chris thompson
Damn. I wish I'd said that.
Chris
Kleuskes & Moos
Seconded. Prefixes shouldn't be hectored around like that.
Kermit
wrote:
Don't worry, Chris - you will.
Kermit
raven1
wrote:
Then why are you advocating it? Or do you not recall saying: "From a
creation standpoint, I take the position that there must have been an
element that was added to non living matter that animates the
non-living matter into a state of living matter that we call life"?
spintronic
> "spintronic" <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip> Go read. (lazy gits)
> > Who also almost 100% contaminated his little experiment 30 years ago.
>
> You apparently missed the three words in the article 'tests later confirmed'
I really really, don't believe you understand. Let me enlighten you.
You are saying that with 1970's technology that some sample
(Made by one man) was *sealed* without contamination. When
inactuality,
this is not possible today.
***********************************************************************
> >>> > After god believers get over the shock hopefully they won't start
> >>> > dabbling in matters that no holy book on earth makes provision for.
>
> >> > No. No shock, no dabbling.
>
> >> > We leave stupidity to create it's own undoing.
>
> >> Yes very true, you certainly do, four centuries was it before Galileo got
> >> a much deserved apology?
>
> > Nothing to do with me. How many centuries do you believe man will last
> > when a child can make a deadly pathogen in their kitchen?
>
> That would depend on many factors like if the child could also design a
> working delivery system and fund the millions of dollars needed for research
> or if the people of the time had the technology to quickly create a cure.
I don't think you understand.
1) The delivery system is a snease, hand-shake, airline ticket.
2) Why would a child need billion dollar research grant? He can google
previous work.
3) Create a cure? Nice. (I guess that will be a race of the quickest),
hypothetically, someone creates a contagious brain cancer. Can we cure
cancer that quick?
> > I don't think you understand. Some people (nuts) don't care how they
> > are
> > remembered. They think they will retire with a 100 virgins.
>
> The problem already exist with the President of Irans desire to posses
> weapons grade nuclear materiels 'for strictly peacfull purposes'.
How can I sum up?
Wanting to kill someone by either:
Nuclear materials vs biochemistry?
It's like this; You are some kid who wants to kill some dick.
You thinks the best way is to save up and "buy a gun". Guns are
expensive.
Then your little bro, thinks blow this, he picks up a tree branch
gets his mates and
does it for free.
> >> The leader in the field of artificial life research is Craig Ventnor and
> >> according to this article the money from green fuels woulds make him into
> >> dollar trillionare.
>
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2010049.ece
>
> > The problem is patenting "novel" genes that produce fuel.
>
> > There could turn out to be possibly millions of ways to repeat the
> > same results.
>
> > While whoever gets there first has a head start, they will not have a
> > monopoly.
>
> >> The present day argument against the creation of artificial life is more
> >> or
> >> less analogous to someone asking the Wright brothers if their first
> >> creation
> >> was an aircraft or not because it could not fly faster than sound.
>
> > I'd say it is more like asking them "is it a bird"?
>
> > Obviously it wasn't.
>
> > Although an aerofoil is a copy of birds, the plane isn't.
>
> > The only way you can claim non-plaigerism with an artificial cell, is
> > if you don't
> > use D.N.A, R.N.A, amino acids, or anythin else that makes a living
> > cell.
>
> An example of an artificial cell not based on biological life would be the
> great many entities that scientist use in computer programs that simulate
> models of evolution and behaviour.
I really thought you was on to something, until you said "simulate
spintronic
How long do you believe it will?
Before someone like venter, will eventually find novel proteins that
catalise carbon based molecules into petrolium.
Now.
How long do you believe it will be?
Before someone like our hypothetical child, will find novel proteins
that catalise essential proteins into goo?
You can even pick the species.
Pick the protein.
Pick your target.
Make a novel enzyme, insert in a common bacteria, and boom!
Any life that depends on that protein is dead.
chris thompson
Yeah, but I will have to wait a long enough time that people forget it
didn't originate with me :(
Chris