That does not get away or contradict the fact that at its most basic concept, life arose from non life.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
That does not get away or contradict the fact that at its most basic concept, life arose from non life.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Which proves that certain non-living (inert) materials have the potential for life which may become expressed in reality under the right condition, or as Bohm calls it, "the Implicate".
@ - wellwisher
@ - Write4U
If I am not misinterpreting what you are saying, then I must concur that there is every possibility that "life" just might be an inherent property of our Universe - at the very least, it is an intriguing hypothesis that definitely deserves much more Scientific Research!
However, there seem to be Posters in this Thread that do not fully agree with Point #[1] of paddoboy's OP :
It seems that these Posters are accepting and utilizing, or "presenting" a "theory" as their basis for "fact" when stating : Life arose from non life.
I essence, according to "predictions" or "relativity" and "the big bang"...the Universe was evidently "lifeless" at "some point".
Trippy explains it all quite nicely, in the following Post:
At any rate, wellwisher and Write4U, you have presented some excellent and intriguing information in your Posts!
@ - Write4U
If I am not misinterpreting what you are saying, then I must concur that there is every possibility that "life" just might be an inherent property of our Universe - at the very least, it is an intriguing hypothesis that definitely deserves much more Scientific Research!
However, there seem to be Posters in this Thread that do not fully agree with Point #[1] of paddoboy's OP :
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists
It seems that these Posters are accepting and utilizing, or "presenting" a "theory" as their basis for "fact" when stating : Life arose from non life.
I essence, according to "predictions" or "relativity" and "the big bang"...the Universe was evidently "lifeless" at "some point".
Trippy explains it all quite nicely, in the following Post:
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists/page26
At any rate, wellwisher and Write4U, you have presented some excellent and intriguing information in your Posts!
Yep, that's the only possibility as most of us have been saying.
Not sure why some cannot accept that.
Point being of course, that it is the only logical answer we can arrive at, if the BB/Inflationary model is accepted, and we have no legitimate reason not to accept it.
Not sure what Wellwisher is saying....as usual his posts are all over the place, mixing some accepted mainstream science with pure drivel.
I'm still waiting for any alternative explanation, ignoring the divine deity one.
Actually this question on "life arising from non life" is a nice little 'side track" illustrating the logic consistency and methodology of science and peer review as put in the OP.
what alternative explanation?
you do not NEED an alternative explanation to point out the facts.
the fact is that science HAS NEVER observed life coming from other than life.
please, don't even suggest science isn't trying.
yes, peer review.
i would assume everyone would agree that life arose from non life.
it seems logical, rational, and sane.
this, in no way, is any kind of evidence, proof, or for that matter truth.
The facts are that accepting the BB/Inflationary theory of Universal/space/time evolution, the only possibility is for life to arise from non life. Unless you accept the unscientific almighty omnipotent deity explanation.
I'm still waiting for any logical reason to invalidate that.
When it is the only explanation available, it is proof in itself, despite your continued denial of that fact.
Generally speaking, yeah, you kind of do. The flip side is this: So your position is basically that life absolutely positively did not arise from non-life, but you have no idea how it might otherwise have occured?
Which basically fits the definition of trolling - you're demanding evidence while providing none.
Your ability to accept or understand the evidence presented by science is a very seperate issue to the evidence presented by science.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
According to Bohm the universe has infinite potential for variety, including the potential for multiple universes. IMO, from what little knowledge I have in cosmology and physics, infinite potential would logically include the potential for life, which is a self-evident expression in reality.
But life still has to follow all the rules of physics. As I postulated before, by religious standards, gods or deities themselves do not meet the qualifications of life, which leads me to conclude that gods are an understandable but "convenient" argument from ignorance which attempt to explain unknown forces and phenomena, but can in fact be attributed to natural evolution where universal potentials are in a constant process of "becoming" real.
It is my suspicion that this natural explication of universal potential is mistaken in theism as "motivated sentience". But the logical question is, if the universe has infinite potential to begin with, why should there be need for a motivated sentience, let alone a living motivated meta-physical sentience residing in a meta-physical plenum?
IMHO, there is too much baggage attached to such speculation. Even in my ignorance I cannot subscribe to the existence of a supernatural entity.
But life still has to follow all the rules of physics. As I postulated before, by religious standards, gods or deities themselves do not meet the qualifications of life, which leads me to conclude that gods are an understandable but "convenient" argument from ignorance which attempt to explain unknown forces and phenomena, but can in fact be attributed to natural evolution where universal potentials are in a constant process of "becoming" real.
It is my suspicion that this natural explication of universal potential is mistaken in theism as "motivated sentience". But the logical question is, if the universe has infinite potential to begin with, why should there be need for a motivated sentience, let alone a living motivated meta-physical sentience residing in a meta-physical plenum?
IMHO, there is too much baggage attached to such speculation. Even in my ignorance I cannot subscribe to the existence of a supernatural entity.
Last edited:
you mean i have to explain WHY science has never observed life coming from non life?
i have to explain WHY science can't recreate life in the lab?
really? seriously?
no, i'm not absolutely, positively sure life didn't come from non life.
i believe i gave 4 possibilities earlier in the thread.
yes, if your assumptions are correct.
as you can see, your assumptions aren't correct.
in regards to life from non life, science hasn't presented ANY direct evidence.
i guess i have to explain WHY that is.
i can't grasp an intelligence without substance.
to my knowledge, science has never demonstrated such a thing (or "non thing").
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Exactly, substance (non-living matter) had to exist before the potential for life could become expressed in reality. Which succinctly sums up the proposition of life arising fron non-living matter. Even a biblical god needed "mud" to create life, which is a reasonable early observation, except for the god part.
Well, as I understand it, we have already been able to produce replicating matter, an astounding feat in itself. Just give a little more time. We'll come up with something.
But to demand of science to produce labaratory proof at this time is an unfair request. It took the universe billions of years and a near infinite number of tries to express the potetial for life in reality, proving that the evolution of a living thing is somewhat more complicated than joining 2 H with 1 O atoms to make a water molecule. It would be unreasonable to expect us to immediately have answers of the HOW.
And in the absence of scientific hard proof at this time, to assert that the "how" was a supernatural entity what "did it", seems to me a stretch of credulity which demands even greater proof than science needs provide in its assertion that life arose from non-living matter.
But theism already admits proof will never be forthcoming. To say "God works in mysterious ways" is neither a productive nor a persuasive argument, IMO.
Last edited:
Once again with the misrepresentations of others:
This is what happens when you do what you've done here, you end up with a bunch of sentences presented out of context and you wind up looking dishonest.
No, that's not what I said.
This is what happens when you do what you've done here, you end up with a bunch of sentences presented out of context and you wind up looking dishonest.
And yet you emphaticly dismiss the possibility.
Belief isn't good enough, either link to the post or restate them.
Aren't they? You've presented no evidence.
Yeah it has - it's presented direct evidence of the self assembly of bi-layer lipid membranes and the self catalysing reproduction of RNA, as well as evidence that the chemistry required is at least viable.in regards to life from non life, science hasn't presented ANY direct evidence.
i guess i have to explain WHY that is.
Well he didn't really present any possibilities, just excuses. At post 514 thus.....
I answered at post 537 thus......
I would just modify my answers mainly to points 2 and 3.........
Even if both or either were valid explanations, it does not invalidate the fact that if we accept the current BB/Inflationary theory of Universal/space/time evolution, then the only answer at its most basic structure is that "LIFE AROSE FROM NON LIFE"
I'm completely ignoring excuse [4]
It has always been the case and will still be for a long while yet, that in the process of science and the scientific method and peer review, ignorance is a condition that always precedes knowledge......to not know is the pathway to knowing and that pathway is shown by science, in spite of all the closet unsupported criticism that some like to spray about.
Science is, as near as is possible, in line with the acceptance of the BB model. It's called chemistry...although the exact application of that chemistry in relation to life arising on Earth, or in the Universe as a whole, is too many and too varied for science as yet to put a finger on it.
See previous paragraph.
as long as science can't duplicate life in the lab from the elements then the question is FAR from closed.
don't you understand?
there is ZERO, AS IN NONE, evidence that supports such a claim.
yes, we might be able to say life wasn't here then was.
that IS NOT evidence of life from non life.
science has said the same thing since about 1953.
science is hardly closer to an answer.
yes, there have been advances, RNA.
it's still a very far cry from the attributes fraggle outlined.
really?
science has never witnessed life from non life.
i think science owes us ALL an explanation as to why it pushes the opposite.
really?
how do you know everything wasn't in the right place at once and catalyzed by an enzyme?
assumptions, don't you love 'em?
who's even talking about a god?
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
That great American Educator, Carl Sagan summed it up beautifully, when he said, "We were all born in the belly of Stars"
At least I thought it was Carl...Maybe he got it from this.....
S T A R D U S T
Translated from the Spanish
by Jonathan Cohen
What’s in a star? We are.
All the elements of our body and of the planet
were once in the belly of a star.
We are stardust.
15,000,000,000 years ago we were a mass
of hydrogen floating in space, turning slowly, dancing.
And the gas condensed more and more
gaining increasingly more mass
and mass became star and began to shine.
As they condensed they grew hot and bright.
Gravitation produced thermal energy: light and heat.
That is to say love.
Stars were born, grew, and died.
And the galaxy was taking the shape of a flower
the way it looks now on a starry night.
Our flesh and our bones come from other stars
and perhaps even from other galaxies,
we are universal,
and after death we will help to form other stars
and other galaxies.
We come from the stars, and to them we shall return
from.....
http://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/surgery/stardust.html
At least I thought it was Carl...Maybe he got it from this.....
S T A R D U S T
Translated from the Spanish
by Jonathan Cohen
What’s in a star? We are.
All the elements of our body and of the planet
were once in the belly of a star.
We are stardust.
15,000,000,000 years ago we were a mass
of hydrogen floating in space, turning slowly, dancing.
And the gas condensed more and more
gaining increasingly more mass
and mass became star and began to shine.
As they condensed they grew hot and bright.
Gravitation produced thermal energy: light and heat.
That is to say love.
Stars were born, grew, and died.
And the galaxy was taking the shape of a flower
the way it looks now on a starry night.
Our flesh and our bones come from other stars
and perhaps even from other galaxies,
we are universal,
and after death we will help to form other stars
and other galaxies.
We come from the stars, and to them we shall return
from.....
http://www.uhmc.sunysb.edu/surgery/stardust.html
You ignore the science...It's rather natural then that people would think you are advocating the non scientific explanation of a God. :shrug:
It is the only other explanation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where did the enzymes originate?
You have in no way invalidated the accepted scientific principal, that life could only have arisen from non life, ignoring the only other non scientific possibility of a God.