Life

Originally posted by menace71
I like to say or think of it this way: How can Something come from Absolutely nothing?

That is a totally different issue from the one I am discussing in the OP.
And my answer is: I have no idea. But I also have no reason to believe it is not possible. We have no data either way. Within the universe, quantum theory suggests that matter pops in and out of existence all the time, and there is no true 'nothing'. For the universe as a whole, the question itself is very problematic. How can one talk of the existence of a true 'nothing' to 'come from', and how can one talk about the process of 'coming' when talking outside the dimension of time? The whole question breaks down.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have noticed that some theists seem to think that life has some magical property that can only come from God. There have been a number of comments suggesting that 'life from non-life' is not only impossible but somehow self evidently ludicrous.

I think such thinking has some major flaws, not least of which is a lack of understanding of grey definitio ...[text shortened]... iving human cells 'life'? At what point can it be declared 'dead' or 'non-life'?

Life means consciousness, reproduction, dwindling then death.

And along with consciousness - are symptoms of consciousness such as intelligence, awareness, desire, emotions, free will.

Some life does not always exhibit symptoms.......but they are their to a greater or lesser degree.

Consciousness cannot be created from chemicals.

Consciousness is not chemicals.

Reproduction cannot happen without consciousness.

I can give you all the chemicals on earth and you will never create consciousness.

However when the environment is proper and conducive for life............life will appear in that environment.

Life is spiritual........and consciousness is a symptom of life.

Life is a symptom of the spiritual soul.

The soul is not restricted from any environment as long as that environment can support life.

If the environment can support life and there are the male and female counterparts - then life shall appear.

The destination of all souls are governed by higher authorities and when the environment is conducive to support life the higher authorities can enable the soul to be impregnated into that environment.

* The only way a scientist can influence the appearance of life - is by making the environment conducive for life to survive............ Thats all they can do.

Without the soul - life cannot appear even if the environment is conducive.

Originally posted by JS357
This, corrected, is called the argument from incredulity. It is gussied up with zeros.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

I believe robbie should replace all those zeros with nines.
The evolutionists must always faal back on - it might be
"discovered in the future" since the possibliity is too
impossible to imagine today.

P.S. Or tens for those who don't like changes. hahaha

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yet, this is what creationists believe in. The the whole Universe was created from nothing. But that is religion, not science, of course.

We believe the whole universe was created from what God called into being.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a totally different issue from the one I am discussing in the OP.
And my answer is: I have no idea. But I also have no reason to believe it is not possible. We have no data either way. Within the universe, quantum theory suggests that matter pops in and out of existence all the time, and there is no true 'nothing'. For the universe as a whole, th ...[text shortened]... of 'coming' when talking outside the dimension of time? The whole question breaks down.

All things are possible with God. 😏 HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have noticed that some theists seem to think that life has some magical property that can only come from God. There have been a number of comments suggesting that 'life from non-life' is not only impossible but somehow self evidently ludicrous.

I think such thinking has some major flaws, not least of which is a lack of understanding of grey definitio ...[text shortened]... iving human cells 'life'? At what point can it be declared 'dead' or 'non-life'?

The following is what the evolutionary scientists say about viruses and prions:

Viruses are found wherever there is life and have probably existed since living
cells first evolved. The origin of viruses is unclear because they do not form
fossils, so molecular techniques have been used to compare the DNA or RNA of
viruses and are a useful means of investigating how they arose.

There are three main hypotheses that try to explain the origins of viruses:

1. Viruses may have once been small cells that parasitised larger cells. Over
time, genes not required by their parasitism were lost.

2. Some viruses may have evolved from bits of DNA or RNA that "escaped" from
the genes of a larger organism. The escaped DNA could have come from plasmids
(pieces of naked DNA that can move between cells) or transposons (molecules of
DNA that replicate and move around to different positions within the genes of
the cell).

3. Viruses may have evolved from complex molecules of protein and nucleic acid
at the same time as cells first appeared on earth and would have been dependent
on cellular life for billions of years.

Viroids are molecules of RNA that are not classified as viruses because they
lack a protein coat. However, they have characteristics that are common to
several viruses and are often called subviral agents. Viroids are important
pathogens of plants.

Viruses that are dependent on the presence of other virus species in the host
cell are called satellites and may represent evolutionary intermediates of
viroids and viruses.

Viruses are now recognised as ancient and to have origins that pre-date the
divergence of life into the three domains. This discovery has led modern
virologists to reconsider and re-evaluate these three classical hypotheses.

It seems unlikely that all currently known viruses have a common ancestor, and
viruses have probably arisen numerous times in the past by one or more mechanisms.

Prions are infectious protein molecules that do not contain DNA or RNA. They can
cause infections such as scrapie in sheep, ("mad cow" disease) in cattle, and
chronic wasting disease in deer; in humans prionic diseases include Kuru,
Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, and Gerstmann–Sträussler–Scheinker syndrome. They are
able to replicate because some proteins can exist in two different shapes and the
prion changes the normal shape of a host protein into the prion shape. This
starts a chain reaction where each prion protein converts many host proteins
into more prions, and these new prions then go on to convert even more protein
into prions; all known prion diseases are fatal. Although prions are fundamentally
different from viruses and viroids, their discovery gives credence to the theory
that viruses could have evolved from self-replicating molecules.

The evolutionists still cling to the possiblility of a common ancestor with every
little hint that their "fairy tale" may be true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following is what the evolutionary scientists say about viruses and prions:

Viruses are found wherever there is life and have probably existed since living
cells first evolved. The origin of viruses is unclear because they do not form
fossils, so molecular techniques have been used to compare the DNA or RNA of
viruses and are a useful means of inve ...[text shortened]... iblility of a common ancestor with every
little hint that their "fairy tale" may be true.

... and your point is ...?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following is what the evolutionary scientists say about viruses and prions:

I didn't ask what you think scientists think virus' and prions are, I asked what you think they are. Are they alive? Can they come from non-life? Why, or why not?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't ask what you think scientists think virus' and prions are, I asked what you think they are. Are they alive? Can they come from non-life? Why, or why not?

Yes I think they are alive and come from others alive like themselves.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following is what the evolutionary scientists say about viruses and prions:

Viruses are found wherever there is life and have probably existed since living
cells first evolved. The origin of viruses is unclear because they do not form
fossils, so molecular techniques have been used to compare the DNA or RNA of
viruses and are a useful means of inve iblility of a common ancestor with every
little hint that their "fairy tale" may be true.

RJHinds acutally wrote: "Viruses are found wherever there is life and have probably existed since living cells first evolved."

I'm so happy that you have turned to be a evolutionist.

You are so right. "Living cells first evolved." Well done, RJHinds, you've grown up at last!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I think they are alive and come from others alive like themselves.

So do you believe that a scientist could not make a prion in the lab?

Also, are other proteins alive, or only prions? What is the magical ingredient in prions not found in other proteins?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So do you believe that a scientist could not make a prion in the lab?

Also, are other proteins alive, or only prions? What is the magical ingredient in prions not found in other proteins?

I am not an expert on prions and proteins. I have read what some of the
evolutionary biologists say about them. Prions and proteins are organic
material and come from organic material, and not from inorganic material.
I believe prions and proteins are just like other organic material, that is,
they are either alive or dead.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not an expert on prions and proteins.

We knew that already. It's about biology, isn't it? See?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not an expert on prions and proteins. I have read what some of the
evolutionary biologists say about them. Prions and proteins are organic
material and come from organic material, and not from inorganic material.
I believe prions and proteins are just like other organic material, that is,
they are either alive or dead.

What is 'organic material' as far as you know? Are any other proteins, other than prions alive that you know of?

So, you are not particularly knowledgeable about proteins, organic material, etc. You rely on what scientist have to say about them.
But when asked whether life can come from non-life, you suddenly become knowledgeable, and think you know better than scientists on the matter? Or are you not one of those that I was addressing in my OP?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is 'organic material' as far as you know? Are any other proteins, other than prions alive that you know of?

So, you are not particularly knowledgeable about proteins, organic material, etc. You rely on what scientist have to say about them.
But when asked whether life can come from non-life, you suddenly become knowledgeable, and think you know b ...[text shortened]... ter than scientists on the matter? Or are you not one of those that I was addressing in my OP?

God only knows. 😏 HalleluYah !!!