Creationists and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer

[SelfSim]

This doesn't define life. I didn't ask what life is not. I asked what life is.

No ... You asked for a line between 'life' and 'almost life' .. and I gave you one (and qualified it with 'biological self-replication').
As follows:

I don't recall drawing a line. If I did; I would welcome you to point it out to me.

You were the one who brought up the subject of "almost life."

Where do you draw the line between life, and "almost life?"

My qualified (clarifying) response was in post #95.

 

[HARK!]

Reference link, please?

hypothesis define - Yahoo Search Results

 

[HARK!]

No ... You asked for a line between 'life' and 'almost life' .. and I gave you one:

That wasn't a very clear line. Fire is not life IMO.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is not science defined anymore? Is the definition of life a matter of opinion? Does the majority opinion define the facts; or are all opinions held with equal regard?

Science uses definitions, but scientists also use terms in the course of their work that are not well-defined or that vary with context (e.g. 'species'); when a strict definition is required it will be made explicit for that context. The pursuit of knowledge through science is a human activity; many terms and concepts used in the course of human activities are not well-defined.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That wasn't a very clear line. Fire is not life IMO.

That narrows it down a bit - what is life in your opinion?

 

[SelfSim]

That wasn't a very clear line. Fire is not life IMO.

.. and I agree with you .. but the difference here is that my reason is objectively testable (biological self-replication) and you haven't given yours.

 

[Speedwell]

Is not science defined anymore? Is the definition of life a matter of opinion? Does the majority opinion define the facts; or are all opinions held with equal regard?

The facts are are range of observable biochemical entities; some really alive, some clearly not, and some in between where it's very hard to tell.

You, on the other hand, appear to think (evolutionists claim) that life emerged directly from inorganic materials. That's what I meant by a "hard line." But there is no hard line between non-life and life, just a gradual process of becoming more lifelike.

 

[pitabread]

We have lab environments that can reproduce any of the physical conditions required which might be required to create a simple life form, from inorganic matter. To say that this was a one time event, which can't be reproduced in a lab, is preposterous.

That wasn't what I said. I said there are specific events that are not reproducible, but I didn't refer to life emerging from non-living components.

Rather, I referred to one time events like the origin of our universe, origin of our planet, and origin of humankind. Despite the fact we cannot recreate these specific events does not mean they are not subject to scientific study.

 

[HARK!]

You, on the other hand, appear to think (evolutionists claim) that life emerged directly from inorganic materials. That's what I meant by a "hard line." But there is no hard line between non-life and life, just a gradual process of becoming more lifelike.

Appear to think? Let's not jump to conclusions.

Are you telling me that you can't draw a clear distinction between what is living, and what is not living?

Please outline this process.

 

[Speedwell]

Appear to think? Let's not jump to conclusions.

Are you telling me that you can't draw a clear distinction between what is living, and what is not living?

Please outline this process.

I'm surprised you don't know of it. Anybody well-informed enough about scientific research into abiogenesis to argue effectively against would have heard of it already. As a rule of thumb, a living entity will have the following properties to some degree:

1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
2. Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
3. Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6. Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms. Life - Wikipedia

Even those are somewhat arbitrary, and most are not qualitative measures, anyway.

 

[SelfSim]

hypothesis define - Yahoo Search Results

Way too generalised even for the point you're making (ie: about experimental investigation).

A useful hypothesis (such as is covered by Abiogenesis) must be objectively testable in principle (and not necessarily tested yet).

 

[SelfSim]

I'm surprised you don't know of it.

As well:
- fortunately, science doesn't just come to an abrupt stop simply because of a lack of some dictionary definition (or the nature of the 'soft' boundaries of the testable definition of life .. which you have provided there). If it did, then new objective knowledge acquistion would also come to a stop.

- Even the testable definition you provided is contextual and provisional. The hard-ilne view that viruses dwell on those soft boundaries, simply ignores the vast majority of cases for which that definition proves its worth.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you speculating that the trolls popped out of the rocks and created all of the other life forms?

You completely missed the point of my post, but since you bring up the subject:

I think you'll find that spontaneous generation was a concept that Christians readily espoused until science came along and put them straight. It's funny how modern Creationists are so unaware of the history of Christian beliefs and want to accuse others of being guilty of their own shortcomings.

 

[HARK!]

You completely missed the point of my post

What was the point of your post?

 

[tas8831]

ok so rocks fell from the sky that also had no life on them.

So rocks...now have ... more rocks. Are you saying they are special rocks because they fall from the sky?

I will never stop being amazed at how eager the creationist is to argue via mockery when they have expended their collection of pseudo-witty retorts.

You could actually read up on these issues before pretending to put forth a real argument.

Start here:

Astrobiology and Origins of Life | ROBERT M. HAZEN

 

[tas8831]

except that did not happen.

all they got was a few amino acids with racemized chiral orientation. which means the protein chains would never be included in a single cell life form -- they had a "dead end". All living cells have levro chiral orientation in their amino acid chains comprising their protein chains. Not only could they not get to abiogenesis... they could not even get to the "bricks" needed to make the house in the first place.

They hit that "dead end" about 70 years ago and have not gotten off the dime since

I am not the least bit surprised that you among those creationists that continue to misrepresent the Miller-Urey experiments, and further are content to ignore all related research since then.

HINT: contrary to creationist disinformation, they did not set out to 'create life', as is often claimed. They set out to test Oparin's hypothesis.
Further experimentation was done using different conditions, different materials, different energy sources, etc., and organics were pretty much always the result.

Regarding the chiral red herring - Hazen and others have done some work on that and found that certain minerals preferentially adsorb organics of particular chiralities.

I do wonder - how much research are creationists doing on ..... anything related to their creation claims?

 

[Ophiolite]

So what was the chemical balance of the water at that time? It would stand to reason that the oceans would have had a lower mineral concentration at that time;

Fascinating. Would you be good enough to present the reasoning that justifies this claim? Alternatively you could just withdraw it.

 

[BobRyan]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]

Actually it is the "contrast" between "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time" vs "God can do it in a single evening-and-morning on day 6".

details.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.

I don't agree.

Are suggesting that you believe that evolutionist have in fact had evolution-fertilizer that they could add to a pile of rocks and at any moment they wished - to then see single celled organisms popping into existence from the barren rocks - but just "did not want to do it" ??

• Life likely did not emerge from rocks (unless Cairns-Smith was correct)

So then mythical evolution-fertilizer or not "it was not going to happen"??

• Life likely emerged from a "primeval soup"

Ok so dust, gas, rocks and water mix?? + ?? evolution-fertilizer?

The primeval soup was likely primed with pre-biotic molecules from incoming bolides

ok so rocks fell from the sky that also had no life on them.

So rocks...now have ... more rocks. Are you saying they are special rocks because they fall from the sky?

Hint: that is not a statement about mockery - rather it is detail, it is fact, it is also asking for clarification in a few cases.

I will never stop being amazed at how eager the creationist is to argue via mockery when they have expended

Not a single detail regarding the points raised - being addressed in that statement.

when someone makes a statement of the form "read all these references because I am sure that in there some place there is a point that favors my POV" they are saying that they don't know the details for the part of the discussion they wish to address.

 

[BobRyan]

Why all these strawmen? Is that all you can bring to the table?

state a fact