Who's on First?

[AV1611VET]

Which exists first?

(Note: this poll is not for those who 'don't know'.)

 

[Freodin]

Define "life".

 

[lostaquarium]

Non-life, obviously. Whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, the earth has to exist before any life can appear...

 

[Freodin]

Non-life, obviously. Whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, the earth has to exist before any life can appear...

Well, it would be possible to define "God" as "alive"... so that reasoning might or might not apply.

But yes, using the biochemical definition of "life", I had exactly the same idea as you: non-life before life, with or without God.

 

[bobguk]

Non-life came first - obviously.

The first elements to form after the Big Bang were hydrogen and helium. Life needs a complex chemistry; therefore it cannot exist until higher elements have been synthesized in the first stars and which have then reached the end of their life-cycles and seeded to interstellar medium with these elements.

Incidentally, that’s a rather interesting choice of words, ‘Who’s on First’ (For the thread title that is, not the opening post). Is this leading up to a claim that it was life that came first, that it created the Big Bang and that it was the deity of the Judeo-Christian persuasion?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Voted "non-life", will surely regret it.

 

[tansy]

Being a Christian i obviously voted life, as I believe God to BE life (in a sense), and that He always existed, always was, is and will be living.

 

[tansy]

Voted "non-life", will surely regret it.

Obviously from your POV you are going to vote non-life.

 

[Tenka]

Being a Christian i obviously voted life, as I believe God to BE life (in a sense), and that He always existed, always was, is and will be living.

I think fire meets more of the criteria by which we define life than God does.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Obviously from your POV you are going to vote non-life.

If you go by the formal definition of "life", God wouldn't be considered alive due to lack of a metabolism, so even a Christian could vote "non-life" here.

 

[tansy]

If you go by the formal definition of "life", God wouldn't be considered alive due to lack of a metabolism, so even a Christian could vote "non-life" here.

Haha...good point LOL. Hmm..how do YOU KNOW God hasnt a metabolism?

 

[Hespera]

tansy sez...Haha...good point LOL. Hmm..how do YOU KNOW God hasnt a metabolism? QUOTE////////////////

hesperaa sez

Oh Tansy you are joking of course. That is so EASY. That is SO easy.

The second law of thermodynamics didnt exist till after the apple was chomped, remember? No 2nd law, no metabolism.

its probably why the lions didnt eat the lambs.

 

[tansy]

tansy sez...Haha...good point LOL. Hmm..how do YOU KNOW God hasnt a metabolism? QUOTE////////////////

hesperaa sez

Oh Tansy you are joking of course. That is so EASY. That is SO easy.

The second law of thermodynamics didnt exist till after the apple was chomped, remember? No 2nd law, no metabolism.

its probably why the lions didnt eat the lambs.

Of course I was joking...did you notice the winking smiley?
However..just wondering..what about the demi-gods that peope used to believe existed..if they'd known about metabolism then..would they have wondered if the demi-gods had metabolism....which actually raises a lot more questions...hmm - sorry, being silly here.

As regards lions not eating lambs..according to the Bible, in the beginning, every living creature was only supposed to eat vegetation..'twas only later that they started eating meat.

 

[Hespera]

Course i knew you were joking Tansy.

I wonder tho how the deep sea fish got their carrots.

And why the plants didnt die when eaten.

 

[tansy]

Course i knew you were joking Tansy.

I wonder tho how the deep sea fish got their carrots.

And why the plants didnt die when eaten.

I assume the plants did die when eaten..don't think there's any problem with that.

Hadnt thought about fish...don't know enough to get into that - for all I know fish (or the fish that were around right at the beginning DID only eat sea vegetation...God alone knows (btw I'm not necessarily coming down on either side of the evo/cre debate...all I'm sure of is that God DID somehow create everything).

 

[Cody2]

God existed first.

 

[Hespera]

tansy sez...I assume the plants did die when eaten..don't think there's any problem with that.

Hadnt thought about fish...don't know enough to get into that - for all I know fish (or the fish that were around right at the beginning DID only eat sea vegetation...God alone knows (btw I'm not necessarily coming down on either side of the evo/cre debate...all I'm sure of is that God DID somehow create everything).QUOTE///////


Hespera sez.

Well the book says no death in the garden, so, the literalists take that seriously. no plant death, or one of our "professors" here gets out of it by saying that plants are not "a life".

look up some deep sea fish on google. tiny things, with huge mouths full of needle teeth, weak watery muscles, able to swallow something bigger than themselves. Living in total darkness, near freezing, just hovering in place with the slightest movements. may have to go for years between meals.

The only food that gets down there will be fragments that drift down from the photic zone.

i guess for my money, the vast changes in the world ecosystem, and in the behavior, morphology and physiology of all animals necessary to swithc from plant to animal diet is pretty far fetched.

As is the existence of a lion, perfectly adapted to yes, the kill... and the gazelle, perfectly adapted to running away... existing when they had no notion of predator and prey is kind of you know... doesnt pass the smell test?

i have honestly tried to find some way to be a Christian but if i have to swallow a toad to do it, well, there is something wrong with the whole religion and im not gonna do it.

 

[Washington]

Haha...good point LOL. Hmm..how do YOU KNOW God hasnt a metabolism?

Yeah.

​

 

[tansy]

Well the book says no death in the garden, so, the literalists take that seriously. no plant death, or one of our "professors" here gets out of it by saying that plants are not "a life".

Well, I think the Scriptures do imply different kinds of life..which I'm not really qualified to go into, but I would at least say there is a difference between plant life, animal life, and even human life

look up some deep sea fish on google. tiny things, with huge mouths full of needle teeth, weak watery muscles, able to swallow something bigger than themselves. Living in total darkness, near freezing, just hovering in place with the slightest movements. may have to go for years between meals.

The only food that gets down there will be fragments that drift down from the photic zone.

i guess for my money, the vast changes in the world ecosystem, and in the behavior, morphology and physiology of all animals necessary to swithc from
plant to animal diet is pretty far fetched.

Then again...surely evolution could handle that?

i have honestly tried to find some way to be a Christian but if i have to swallow a toad to do it, well, there is something wrong with the whole religion and im not gonna do it.

Perhaps you haven't evolved enough to swallow a toad! tee hee Seriously though, there are plenty of Christians, probably most, who do feel that evolution is compatible with the Bible...If one could only find the answers to everything - I suspect that when we die we'll find that none of us are completely right about things.

.

 

[Hespera]

Sure Tansy, given time evolution can handle all sorts of things. The story doesnt seem to provide for tens of millions of years tho.

as for what we will find out, I kinda think we will find out the same thing we did before we are born....eternity can go by but you wont know it.