LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksFirst of all, I'm not exactly sure which section to put this topic under.
My question is; if a person were able to create life through a scientific experiment, would it disprove the idea of god.
October 8th, 2009, 09:48 PM
First of all, I'm not exactly sure which section to put this topic under.
My question is; if a person were able to create life through a scientific experiment, would it disprove the idea of god.
no
I created life. It didn't disprove the existence of any of the thousands of extant or extinct gods of humanity. Which reminds me, I have to get to bed so I can take that creation to school in the morning.
October 9th, 2009, 12:28 AM
I was short earlier with my post because my girlfriend had just come by. I wanted to follow-up, though.Originally Posted by mobc
Scientific experiment has already created life, and yet the idea of god is still present. The challenge is that facts and evidence have very little to do with belief and faith.
Anyway, speaking of already having created life, check out the Urey-Miller experiment.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JaYWEsT7fU
inow which part of that experiment shows any life being created? the answer I am expecting is none of it because science has never ever ever ever managed to create a living cell from scratch.
No matter how science is correct, there will still be people who believe in God. Both science and religion can still coexist side by side. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome research project is a scientist and is also religious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)
Uhhmmm... That would be the results section, Critical. Did you even bother to read the link I shared with you before blindly dismissing it and misrepresenting it? Is it possible you are defining life in the very narrow and myopic view of that which exists today in its present form?
Either way, if you don't like Urey-Miller, here's another approach:
http://www.physorg.com/news171263002.html
I'm not sure if this describes you or not, Critical, but I really love it when creationist nutters fault science as lacking evidence, and then as their answer insert a celestial dictator based on bronze aged fairy tales which is completely lacking in evidence despite thousands of years of searching for it. The hypocrisy and double standards are glaring.
To be fair, inow, while those experiments certainly were revolutionary and has given us a clear indication that abiogenesis is indeed possible, no actual life was ever created?
I'd tend disagree, but I suppose it all centers on how you define "life."
a 'thing' capable of reproduction and growth, independent of external influence. We didn't get that far. All we did was make the necessary ingredients in a lab, we didn't create a self-replicating organism.
Okay. I'll concede the point.
I think we all agree that there's no reason we can't do it, though. The only real challenge is that the life we're trying to create is so simple and basic that it gets destroyed by the rest of the more complex well-evolved life which exists today... Any amino acid chains would be eaten, basically, before they had a chance to form longer peptide chains.
It's not like this means "only god can do it." It just means that these particular mechanisms are difficult to reproduce since the environment today is so different from the environment then. In sum, the argument that "science hasn't done it yet" doesn't really sway me toward belief in a fairy tale being the only accurate representation of reality.
A little more on this, might be interesting.
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells.htmNo experiment has ever been conducted by which living cells can be created in a laboratory from basic ingredients. In later life, Dr Stanley Miller himself conceded in Scientific American that "the problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, or most other people, envisioned" (Ankerberg, 1998a).
Life in a test tube. One of the most famous experiments that has been used to support the emergence of life from the "primeval soup" was published in Science magazine in 1953 and was performed by Dr Stanley Miller (Ankerberg, 1998a). In this experiment water vapour, ammonia, methane and hydrogen was subjected to spark discharges and simple amino acids were formed. After this experiment was performed, a newspaper headline proclaimed that life had been made in a test tube!
However, amino acids, whilst constituents of living cells are no more living cells that iron ore in the ground is a car. The experiment also had lots of shortfalls:-
Arcane; An interesting thought and one I've wondered about. Either living cells formed in vast amounts from some event or process or how could they have survived. Nutrition must have been needed and I'm not aware of anything living, surviving off inorganic material alone.a 'thing' capable of reproduction and growth, independent of external influence. We didn't get that far. All we did was make the necessary ingredients in a lab, we didn't create a self-replicating organism.
If a process, say from elements with in the earth, seeping up through the mantle, under the pressures and heat created billions of years ago (must have been much higher heat), then it would add up or that there is a missing link or theory between what could have been both organic and inorganic in nature. Just a thought....
Again... It really depends on how you define "nutrition." It's just basic chemistry which was taking place. Is it "nutrition" when two hydrogen molecules join with an oxygen molecule to form water? I really struggle to understand why this is so hard for folks. It's amazing what tiny changes can lead to over extremely long time periods such as those involved with this question.
I've shared this before elsewhere, but I'll share it again here since it's so easy to grasp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
inow;
Yes, as a molecule of water forms or fuses, as organic matter does, however alone these are not living cells/organisms. Our form of life 'Carbon Based' and there are potential other elements that are thought, could bond producing organic materials for life, like silicone. It's possible other adhesive and stable elements exist, but were not created or we have not found from the nucleosynthesis process of our sun.
Read more: http://organic-chemistry.suite101.co...#ixzz0TXp0EWXGThe feature that distinguishes an organic from inorganic molecule is that organic contain carbon-hydrogen bonds, whereas inorganic molecules do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleos...ucleosynthesisStellar nucleosynthesis occurs in stars during the process of stellar evolution. It is responsible for the generation of elements from carbon to iron by nuclear fusion processes. Stars are the nuclear furnaces in which H and He are fused into heavier nuclei, a process which occurs by proton-proton chain in stars cooler than the Sun, and by the CNO cycle in stars more massive than the Sun.
All the requirements for the definition of life itself, are inanimate/inorganic and not self sustaining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeLife (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes ("alive," "living"), from those which do not[1][2] —either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate."
What was an interesting comment to me, was the notion that at any given point in time a single celled micro-organism could have formed, somehow sustain life with no other organic matter to nourish itself and yet reproduce, beginning the chain of evolution.
I have long felt, like 50 years, that life formed through a process, that process was very early in the earths formation, possible on the majority of objects created from the solar ignition. On smaller objects this would have ceased almost immediately, larger ones is an on going process hindered by environmental condition.
Here is another angle, that I would argue with. but with many of the same thoughts;
1. Origins of Life: Life on Earth Came From other Planets
http://brainmind.com/OriginsofLife.htmlA)Our sun and solar system are the remnants of a vast star system which exploded in a huge supernova at over 5 billion years ago. Debris from the shattered remains of this star system gave birth to many new stars including our sun, the Earth, and solar system. The Earth was bombarded with debris from the ancient star for 700 million years with the first evidence of life appearing on the Earth and on Mars immediately thereafter. Some of the life from this ancient star system survived encased in planetary debris which was flung upon the surface of the new Earth.
This evidence includes fossils of past life found in A) three meteors from Mars, B) five meteors which originated outside the solar system, and C) three soil samples from the moon. In 1969, when a camera from the Surveyor 3 was retrieved from the lunar surface and returned to Earth, it was found to be coated with "organic material of unknown origin" and a single dormant microbe was discovered inside.
Jackson - As with many times in our past exchanges, I'm struggling to grasp the relevance of some of your comments, but I will say this regarding your final point. The panspermia hypothesis does not answer the question, it merely displaces it.
October 10th, 2009, 03:13 PM
It would only prove that life can be created by a natural process. Even then it would have to be shown that this would happen somewhere in nature where there are no scientists. Also you'd still have to explain the universe (if your a god of the gaps kind of guy).
October 10th, 2009, 03:15 PM
Depends on how you define life, I'd say for origin of life research, best to find something that can reproduce, that way evolution can take over, making molecules isn't that impressive to me. If these things describe something more than creating molecules I'll take a look at them.I was short earlier with my post because my girlfriend had just come by. I wanted to follow-up, though.
Scientific experiment has already created life, and yet the idea of god is still present. The challenge is that facts and evidence have very little to do with belief and faith.
Anyway, speaking of already having created life, check out the Urey-Miller experiment.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JaYWEsT7fU
Golkarian - Just out of curiosity, do you think god did it? I ask because I find it humorous when people dismiss scientific hypotheses of abiogenesis as lacking evidence, and then immediately pivot to an unprovable god... and when I say "humorous," I really mean "hypocritical."
and they think the exact opposite... maybe you can defend your own argument, since it seems the origins debate is currently, as it always has been, and quite well may always be, a stale-mate
Lithoautotrophs do this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithotroph
The base requirement is access to environmental CO2 and the ability to fix it into organic compounds. The energy they can get from oxidizing inorganic compounds.
The ecosystems around hydrothermal vents are based on the ability of the bacteria and archaea there to oxidize the minerals and compounds leeched from the vents by the hot water. Then heterotrophs develop around them and consume them.
Edit: Not to mention ever present algae in the ocean which are photoautotrophs, they don't need to eat anything either. Although, they are not thought of as the earliest form of life because phylogenetics points to the chemoautotrophic archaea and bacteria.
October 10th, 2009, 05:30 PM
mobc; I feel a little guilty, in part for hijacking your thread, however as a couple others have suggested, NO, I don't think the faithful of any religion will be lose that faith. Keep in mind most don't even use the Old Testament, in the first place, where the only mention of Genesis occurs. Then there have been many revisions to ideas in the Theological teachings, even other religions to deflect Scientific Advancements and going well back into history. In fact the both the Christan and Muslim Religions had their Renaissance, well after the earth was determined to orbit the Sun, not the center of all things.
Welcome to this forum and please accept my apologies for ignoring your basic question.
An occasional poster myself...jackson33
I think the hypothesis 'God did it' is just as speculative as the rest, with the added bonus that while theoretically the other hyptheses may one day be testable, that hypothesis will never be.
But origin of life isn't there yet. I'm reading Genesis by Robert Hazen (a researcher in the field and not a creationist, despite the title) on origin of life research which is so far pretty good, maybe I'll look at the links, I was too busy before, plus I already knew about the Urey-Miller experiment.
lolUhhmmm... That would be the results section, Critical. Did you even bother to read the link I shared with you before blindly dismissing it and misrepresenting it? Is it possible you are defining life in the very narrow and myopic view of that which exists today in its present form?
Either way, if you don't like Urey-Miller, here's another approach:
http://www.physorg.com/news171263002.html
I'm not sure if this describes you or not, Critical, but I really love it when creationist nutters fault science as lacking evidence, and then as their answer insert a celestial dictator based on bronze aged fairy tales which is completely lacking in evidence despite thousands of years of searching for it. The hypocrisy and double standards are glaring.
huge difference between life and the chemicals life utilize (or do you consider passing urine a reproductive act?).
if we didn't pass urine, we would get jaundice and die preventing us from reproducing, caring for our offspring, and otherwise influencing the world to better the chances of our gene's survival.
Not really. Life lies along a spectrum, and is not some binary state. Either way, it might behoove you to read the posts which were made after the one you've quoted before giving me a lecture... Mmm 'kay?
sure
hence there remains a clear distinction between the state of possessing "life" and the incumbent chemicals life requires to be maintained in such a state
Never heard of death?Not really. Life lies along a spectrum, and is not some binary state.
sureEither way, it might behoove you to read the posts which were made after the one you've quoted before giving me a lecture... Mmm 'kay?
What qualities does living urine have that distinguishes it from dead urine?
Care to try to define death?
The cells in it are still alive.
take a dead personCare to try to define death?
compare with a living one
get back to us with your conclusion
If a person has cells in their urine they probably have a kidney infection ... otherwise it usually looks something like thisThe cells in it are still alive.
Surely, you've misspoke. Urine is NOT alive. Perhaps you intended to refer to the organisms within the urine?
"hence there remains a clear distinction between the state of possessing "life" and the incumbent chemicals life requires to be maintained in such a state"
Many arbitrary things are clear, and many lies too
what do you mean by "possessing life"...
being alive?
life is a chemical reaction
unless you mean something philosophical by "life" in which case, nothing is clear until you define what you mean
Fancy that, eh?Surely, you've misspoke. Urine is NOT alive. Perhaps you intended to refer to the organisms within the urine?
Urine is not alive.
I guess that makes the whole issue of urea synthesis being an example of life synthesis moot .....
so people keep saying, but it appears that if I want to accept such an argument I have to accept that urine has life.
by life, I mean something that possesses it, and in its absence, is absent.unless you mean something philosophical by "life" in which case, nothing is clear until you define what you mean
So we can talk of living humans, animals, plants, cells and viruses but not chairs, rocks, newspapers or tractors.
ok?
"life" is then a series of chemical reactions occuring within the organism that is alive, when the organism is dead, those chemical reactions stop and vice versa.
Hence a corpse is not alive, although the chemicals are present, many chemical reactions that occured when it was alive are no longer happening, and it is these chemical reactions that we are calling life.
"so people keep saying, but it appears that if I want to accept such an argument I have to accept that urine has life. "
nope, that's just a strawman used to change the argument to something much more difficult to prove... noone said urine is alive, but urinating is a technique that we have developed to survive, there is a difference. Each chemical in our cells is not alive either, but they work together to make life.
well I accept your point, I reject the implication that anyone in a scientific discussion wouldn't, and I reject your definition of life, since it doesn't mean anything.
You can define anything like you did, whether it is alive or not: a chair possesses chairness; when it doesn't, it's no longer a chair. "Possessing" is not very scientific anyway. Life is something that is alive... no shit, what defines being alive then?
that's a rhetorical question, since these terms are rather well defined all ready, although I think there is still some disagreement about viruses.
It would seem that loftmarcell enjoys being intentionally obtuse.
sure
that's the theory
an absence of evidence to back it up (such as implementing these said chemical reactions into the deceased) relegates it to the arena of theory.
hence the clear suggestion that life remains distinct from the chemicals it utilizes and that citing urea-synthesis is simply not seeing the argument in its proper form."so people keep saying, but it appears that if I want to accept such an argument I have to accept that urine has life. "
nope, that's just a strawman used to change the argument to something much more difficult to prove... noone said urine is alive, but urinating is a technique that we have developed to survive, there is a difference. Each chemical in our cells is not alive either, but they work together to make life.
Interestingwell I accept your point, I reject the implication that anyone in a scientific discussion wouldn't, and I reject your definition of life, since it doesn't mean anything.
you reject that idea can be determined by an absence of qualities that indicate death
and you think this is scientific?
perhaps your argument,ent would be valid if "chairness" existed in some sort of diametrically opposed state (like say life and death)You can define anything like you did, whether it is alive or not: a chair possesses chairness; when it doesn't, it's no longer a chair.
Once again"Possessing" is not very scientific anyway. Life is something that is alive... no shit, what defines being alive then?
Take a dead person
compare
get back to us with your results
for the purposes of definition, I am working with the understanding that if it can be indicated in a dead state, it must have previously possessed lifethat's a rhetorical question, since these terms are rather well defined all ready, although I think there is still some disagreement about viruses.
there's nothing obtuse about it.
Even a 6 year old can distinguish between something dead and alive.
Ah. I see. So, you're trolling. Yes, that definitely makes more sense.there's nothing obtuse about it.
Even a 6 year old can distinguish between something dead and alive.
there's no trolling about itAh. I see. So, you're trolling. Yes, that definitely makes more sense.there's nothing obtuse about it.
Even a 6 year old can distinguish between something dead and alive.
You pose that urea synthesis is am example of synthesizing life
I pose that there's a big difference between life and the chemicals it utilizes
You pose that there isn't because life doesn't exist in a binary state.
citing the absurdity of living urine, I point out that that this is not the case
You seem to agree with that point yet still indicate urea synthesis for some undefined reason.
A few others enter and try to dress up the nature of death and life being some incredibly complex thing that defies us.
You label me as being obtuse.
I painfully remind you that even a 6 year old is not confused on the subject.
You assert that this is trolling.
I am waiting to see if you actually have an argument behind your claim that I was being obtuse.
October 14th, 2009, 12:17 AM
There are also hidden problems in your question.
1) Should it be necessarily "a person", what if this scientific experiment was the result of a collective effort? Such as group of people doing the experiment and/or the knowledge for this experiment is based on various experiments previously made. So what kind or creator are we imagining in here?
2) To create life? The life as we know was not created in the first place: It has been evolving from one formation to another, and accumulating its strategies (self experiments) through DNA. There is no starting point, year or era for life. There is an existence period (around 4 billion year) from less organised to alternative and complex organisms. Scientists do not create things out of nowhere; they use already existing materials and play with them in order to prove, disprove, search or understand the nature. Scientific experiments do not employ the method of creation. So believers will still claim that their Gods are above any experiment.
3) What type of life are we talking about? If it is going to be a DNA based life, the experiment will only repeat what evolver nature or creator god had already done. Non believer will say that "nature can produce life without any supreme intervention", while believers will say that "if humans repeated the creation of DNA, that means God (an intelligent super being or just "creator") must have done the same thing." Non believer will claim that God doesn't exist, and believer will say it does.
4) If we could cause a working logic (such as computers), and develop it using science and technology, so we could create our own self replicating system(s). They would not have to work according to DNA, or they wouldn't even have to be composed of organic material. What would the result of this experiment tell us? Are we Gods now? DNA is not the only source of life in universe? Creation is not a unique or important issue? Could we say that God was something like us, then lost control over its creation?
All in all, who is/are the people who would conduct the experiment, what kind of creation, what type of god, and what if we do better than DNA based life?
"I am working with the understanding that if it can be indicated in a dead state, it must have previously possessed life"
I agree with this, but is this why you think life and death are opposites?
Death comes from life, no shit, it's in the definition of death "the end of life" but this doesn't make "life," by default, "the end of death"
Death is not merely the absence of life, except in a philosophical or spiritual sense.
They are not opposite states they are linear progressions from one state to another, from life to death, not vice versa.
A 6 year old cannot tell the difference between something that is alive and something that is dead unless tought. They can tell the difference between fresh air and rotting amino acids and will probably instinctually avoid dead things. But if something like Mommy were to die, the kid would probably assume mommy is sleeping, unless told otherwise.
Even a 6yo that can identify "this is alive" "this is dead" doesn't necissarily think that being alive is the opposite of being dead; this is the result of educating them about cultural concepts that may or may not be true. A 3 month year old can tell the difference between mom and dad, happy and sad, but that doesn't make them opposites: conceptions like that can only come from misinformed/misguided mentors.
"A few others enter and try to dress up the nature of death and life being some incredibly complex thing that defies us. "
Are you insinuating that it's rediculous to concider life and death beyond our control?
life and death are as dualistic as absence and presence
It does indicate that they are mutually exclusive terms howeverDeath comes from life, no shit, it's in the definition of death "the end of life" but this doesn't make "life," by default, "the end of death"
its not clear what other sense you understand by deathDeath is not merely the absence of life, except in a philosophical or spiritual sense.
I don't see how you can indicate something as half dead or half aliveThey are not opposite states they are linear progressions from one state to another, from life to death, not vice versa.
The idea is that within that 6 year period they have become familiar with squashed bugs and road kill and are capable of extrapolating that to the wider context of their surroundingsA 6 year old cannot tell the difference between something that is alive and something that is dead unless tought. They can tell the difference between fresh air and rotting amino acids and will probably instinctually avoid dead things. But if something like Mommy were to die, the kid would probably assume mommy is sleeping, unless told otherwise.
the point about the 6 year old was to point out that whatever mystery might lie in the details of defining the states, we don't have problems recognizing them (although arguably a dead person may have difficulty recognizing it, due to their absence of consciousness)Even a 6yo that can identify "this is alive" "this is dead" doesn't necissarily think that being alive is the opposite of being dead; this is the result of educating them about cultural concepts that may or may not be true. A 3 month year old can tell the difference between mom and dad, happy and sad, but that doesn't make them opposites: conceptions like that can only come from misinformed/misguided mentors.
I am suggesting it is ridiculous to consider life and death beyond our systems of category, since its even available to a 6 year old (with startling accuracy)"A few others enter and try to dress up the nature of death and life being some incredibly complex thing that defies us. "
Are you insinuating that it's rediculous to concider life and death beyond our control?
This is clearly not a topic about religious belief or the scientific inquiry into superstition, belief, and cult but, rather, one of biology. Please reformulate your thoughts, leave the trolling behind, and repost in the biology subforum if interested.
| « The age-old question that atheists love to dodge. | Blind belief » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
