Origin of Life

[AV1611VET]

In this video, Kent Hovind pwns the origin of life from unicelluar organisms:

I especially like his "frog in a blender" example, starting at 07:25.

You can have all the ingredients of life in a single blender, but you can't bring it back to life.

 

[Bradskii]

Definitions are always good before you start a discussion, so can you tell us what definition you are using for life?

 

[AV1611VET]

Definitions are always good before you start a discussion, so can you tell us what definition you are using for life?

This video explains it, starting at 02:00 :

To summarize it, life must have the following qualities:

1. Similar to others of its kind, but not an exact duplicate.
2. Able to repair and duplicate itself.
3. Able to adjust to changing environmental conditions.
4. An urge or drive toward self-fulfillment.

 

[d taylor]

-

​

Life did not have a beginning, as God did not have a beginning.

 

[Lost4words]

God created everything. His Word was and is enough..

 

[Bradskii]

This video explains it, starting at 02:00 :

To summarize it, life must have the following qualities:

1. Similar to others of its kind but not an exact duplicate. 5
2. Able to repair and duplicate itself. n/a
3. Able to adjust to changing environmental conditions. 5
4. An urge or drive toward self-fulfillment. 7

He's heading is the right direction, but only got two out of the 8. Here's a recognised list of the characteristics:

1) Reproduction
2) Metabolism
3) Response to stimuli
4) Heredity
5) Adaptation through evolution
6) Homeostasis
7) Growth and development
8) Cellular organization

The question to ask now is how many of that 8 do you need before you can be classed as alive? All of them?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Life did not have a beginning, as God did not have a beginning.​

Do you mean that god is alive? Just asking for clarity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Kent Hovind? In the year of Our Lord 2025? Really?

 

[d taylor]

Do you mean that god is alive? Just asking for clarity.

-

​

God is life, there is no separating life and God. God did not exist and then one day decide to bring life into existence.

There is no such thing as origin of life, that is a science lie. Sadly that is something Bible believing creationist have adopted as a belief

 

[essentialsaltes]

Kent Hovind? In the year of Our Lord 2025? Really?

The video is 14 years old, but Hovind's out of jail (again), so I guess we can look forward to something new from him.

 

[Perpetual Student]

-

​

God is life, there is no separating life and God. God did not exist and then one day decide to bring life into existence.

There is not such thing as origin of life, that is a science lie. Sadly that is something Bible believing creationist have adopted as a belief

I didn't ask whether he is "life" (whatever that means). I asked whether he is alive.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't ask whether he is "life" (whatever that means). I asked whether he is alive.

I don't think anyone can fully define "life" from an academic standpoint.

But the best way to describe it, in my opinion, is: "the miracle of life".

 

[d taylor]

I didn't ask whether he is "life" (whatever that means). I asked whether he is alive.

-
​

I answered your question, being that God is life it should be obvious He is alive.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think anyone can fully define "life" from an academic standpoint.

But the best way to describe it, in my opinion, is: "the miracle of life".

Hovind made a rather poor attempt. I gave you a more comprehensive list of requirements. Again, do you think that you need all of them to be classed as alive?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hovind made a rather poor attempt. I gave you a more comprehensive list of requirements. Again, do you think that you need all of them to be classed as alive?

Do you mind explaining #6 ... thanks.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you mind explaining #6 ... thanks.

Temperature regulation, fluid balance...

 

[AV1611VET]

Temperature regulation, fluid balance...

Thanks.

Ya ... let's go with it.

Angelic life aside, I'll say YES to your question then.

You need:

1) Reproduction
2) Metabolism
3) Response to stimuli
4) Heredity
5) Adaptation through evolution
6) Homeostasis
7) Growth and development
8) Cellular organization

... to be classified as "alive and healthy".*

* The reason I added "and healthy" is because of exceptions.

For instance, a person can be comatose (see #3) but still alive.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The video is 14 years old, but Hovind's out of jail (again), so I guess we can look forward to something new from him.

Kent Hovind? New? LOL. The man hasn't had a new thought since the 80s.

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks.

Ya ... let's go with it.

Angelic life aside, I'll say YES to your question then.

You need:

1) Reproduction
2) Metabolism
3) Response to stimuli
4) Heredity
5) Adaptation through evolution
6) Homeostasis
7) Growth and development
8) Cellular organization

... to be classified as "alive and healthy".*

* The reason I added "and healthy" is because of exceptions.

For instance, a person can be comatose (see #3) but still alive.

OK, we'll go with that. There are some grey areas but we can ignore those.

Now, we agree that we need pretty much all of those characteristics for something to be considered 'living'. But they don't all need to appear at the same time. You could have some initial cellular organisation happening before the ability to reproduce appears. We could have growth before homeostasis. The chances of all of them happening to appear at the same time is astronomically large. A virtual impossibility. So Hovin's example of the frog in the blender isn't valid. You can't immediately reconstitute life from the constituent parts. As he quite rightly says.

It needs to be built up, step by step. So he was asking a question a 6 year old might ask (or maybe he was talking to 6 year olds). And a question that would be ridiculed by a ten year old (I know my grandson would think it nonsensical). It's like saying that you could get a pack of cards and shuffle them (all the constituent parts are there) and then deal A, 2, 3 etc of clubs, diamonds, hearts and spades - all in order. Again, the odds of that happening (I just checked) are 1 in 8.065e+67, which is about the same number as the number of atoms in our galaxy.

So, now you want to know how it happened...

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, we agree that we need pretty much all of those characteristics for something to be considered 'living'. But they don't all need to appear at the same time. You could have some initial cellular organisation happening before the ability to reproduce appears. We could have growth before homeostasis. The chances of all of them happening to appear at the same time is astronomically large. A virtual impossibility. So Hovin's example of the frog in the blender isn't valid. You can't immediately reconstitute life from the constituent parts. As he quite rightly says.

Would you say then, that a living [plant or] animal is a gestalt?

That is, it is greater than the sum of its parts?

As Kent pointed out, once you shut the blender off, you still need to introduce energy back into the equation.

(I liked his battery cables suggestion.)