Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's only because you don't know what you're talking about.
Okay ... sorry.AV,please do not try to derail a non mudslinging thread..it has been to long since I have seen a thread not degenerate into ..yayaya,my religion says it aint so,that settles it..
Please restrain yourself and follow to the OP's wishes.
I understand --I'm not asking you to bow out, my friend..just to keep it in the confines of the OP's subject matter and wishes.
Derailing a thread is an easy thing to do..intentional or not.
That doesn't fit the context of the general use of these terms. If what you claim is true, then everyone should say "13.7 billion years" when they are asked for their age.
That'd be funny, wouldn't it be?
Please indicate which statement(s) you think is/are true regarding "the event" mentioned in Question 3:
1. The Event resulted in the formation of all inorganic matter and all energy only.
2. The Event resulted in the formation of all inorganic matter, all organic matter, and all energy only.
(Feel free to reword the statements if you don't understand what I'm getting at. It's not meant as a trick question.)
If you're saying that life comes from non-life, I don't believe it's true. Can you please point me to an article (that I can understand) that substantiates this claim?Obviously, life on Earth continues to create organic molecules from inorganic molecules, and there are other abiotic processes producing organic molecules. This is an ongoing process.
Once it was thought that there was a separate "organic chemistry" that was only produced by living things. They thought there was something "special" about the chemistry of life. This belief was called "vitalism".If you're saying that life comes from non-life, I don't believe it's true.
Here is a fairly simple explanation: History & Future - Urea and the beginnings of organic chemistryCan you please point me to an article (that I can understand) that substantiates this claim?
No, I'm not asking about abiogenesis -- I know there's no proof for that. I'm asking if there's proof that a living thing can "evolve" (if that's the right word) from a non-living thing.If you are asking about abiogenesis, Dysert, we don't know that for sure, although there are good arguments for it.
Thanks. I'll follow the link you provided and see if I can make sense of it ;-)Once it was thought that there was a separate "organic chemistry" that was only produced by living things. They thought there was something "special" about the chemistry of life. This belief was called "vitalism".
Here is a fairly simple explanation: History & Future - Urea and the beginnings of organic chemistry
Life is just a subset of chemical reactions, following the same laws of chemistry as all other reactions.
This is remarkable. It is astounding. But we can understand it. And that is amazing.
I read the article, and if I understand it correctly, it's saying that there are some organic chemicals that can be manufactured from inorganic chemicals. Assuming I'm right about that, I have another question. Are organic chemicals *sufficient* for life?Once it was thought that there was a separate "organic chemistry" that was only produced by living things. They thought there was something "special" about the chemistry of life. This belief was called "vitalism".
Here is a fairly simple explanation: History & Future - Urea and the beginnings of organic chemistry
Life is just a subset of chemical reactions, following the same laws of chemistry as all other reactions.
This is remarkable. It is astounding. But we can understand it. And that is amazing.
No, I'm not asking about abiogenesis -- I know there's no proof for that. I'm asking if there's proof that a living thing can "evolve" (if that's the right word) from a non-living thing.
I read the article, and if I understand it correctly, it's saying that there are some organic chemicals that can be manufactured from inorganic chemicals. Assuming I'm right about that, I have another question. Are organic chemicals *sufficient* for life?
I considered that very question before posting my reply. It's hard for me to come up with an exact definition, but (with a few exceptions) I'd say something is living if it can reproduce. (I know this isn't exact because, for example, a mule is a living organism, but it's sterile.) If you have a more precise definition for "living" please share it.What would your definition of living and non-living be, in this case?
Can't say much without knowing where you place that boundary.
No, I'm not asking about abiogenesis -- I know there's no proof for that. I'm asking if there's proof that a living thing can "evolve" (if that's the right word) from a non-living thing.
No, I'm not asking about abiogenesis -- I know there's no proof for that. I'm asking if there's proof that a living thing can "evolve" (if that's the right word) from a non-living thing.
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?