No ... You asked for a line between 'life' and 'almost life' .. and I gave you one (and qualified it with 'biological self-replication').This doesn't define life. I didn't ask what life is not. I asked what life is.
My qualified (clarifying) response was in post #95.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?"
No ... You asked for a line between 'life' and 'almost life' .. and I gave you one:
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.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?
That narrows it down a bit - what is life in your opinion?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.That wasn't a very clear line. Fire is not life IMO.
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.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?
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.
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.
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: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.
Way too generalised even for the point you're making (ie: about experimental investigation).
As well:I'm surprised you don't know of it.
You completely missed the point of my post, but since you bring up the subject: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
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?
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
Fascinating. Would you be good enough to present the reasoning that justifies this claim? Alternatively you could just withdraw it.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;
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?
I will never stop being amazed at how eager the creationist is to argue via mockery when they have expended
state a factWhy all these strawmen? Is that all you can bring to the table?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?