If we can all agree that the idea of spontaneous generation (life from non-life) was laid to rest in 1859 by Louis Pastuer and his famous chicken broth experiment, I think we could get somewhere with this discussion.

There are six parts to what is today the Cell Theory that are accepted by biologists everywhere.

1. All living things are made up of a cell or cells.
2. The cell is a structural and functional unit of all living things
3. All cells come from pre-existing cells. (Spontaneous Generation does not occur.)
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from cell to cell during cell division.
5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
6. all energy flow (metabolism & biochemistry) of life occurs within cells.

The only one I will deal with in this discussion is number three. If spontaneous generation does not occur, how then, could life have started without a Creator of some sort? I am not, in this discussion, going to claim a certain deity (even though I do have beliefs in a specific one), but I do wonder how life came to arise from non-life, and why many biologists claim that it did, with no help from a creator. Even though this violates a basic principle of Biology.



And please, if you do not have a little bit more than basic knowledge of Chemistry or Biology, refrain from posting here. In discussing this, I would like it to be acknowledged and decided on how complex life even at the basic level is.


Cell theory list obtained from: http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/unity/cell.text.htm

I would also appreciate it if this thread did not become a "But who created God" debate. That is pointless and will get us nowhere. I am working on the assumption that a creator would be eternal.

I would also appreciate it if this thread did not become a "But who created God" debate. That is pointless and will get us nowhere. I am working on the assumption that a creator would be eternal.



i agree. it is pointless to say who created God. But that doesnt limit the fact that there is not a God. I still belive that there is a higher supernatural power that science or mankind cannot prove. we no that there is a God thru the Holy Spirit which is in 3 main parts.

I agree with what you said here. There is no proof that non-life can create life. Let's say biologists make life but it would only prove all the more that there is a designer.

I agree with what you said here. There is no proof that non-life can create life. Let's say biologists make life but it would only prove all the more that there is a designer.

Biologists have made amino acids and small, uncomplicated proteins. But that is FAR from creating life.

People are always hesitant to start an intellectual conversation in the wee hours of the morning. Eh...can't blame em. I'll just see where this goes tomorrow.

i don't believe the whole science thing really. dont believe in the whole cell therory.

People are always hesitant to start an intellectual conversation in the wee hours of the morning. Eh...can't blame em. I'll just see where this goes tomorrow.

Be prepared to have a visit from WhiteMage. If he has a reply that is.

i don't believe the whole science thing really. dont believe in the whole cell therory.

The Cell Theory seems pretty solid to me.

The Cell Theory seems pretty solid to me.


to me chemitry/biology can only go so far back until they run out of clues/evidence or whatever they r looking for. it like evolution to me...

i don't believe the whole science thing really.


Wow...

Anyway, this is the atheist rebuttal from talkorigins:

"The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

we know that there is a God thru the Holy Spirit which is in 3 main parts.

You don't know, you believe. Please keep your unprovable beliefs out of scientific discussion.

The point you make in your opening post avoids certain points. Cells are generated from cells, not non-living matter. However, nonliving matter can be made into amino acids through chemical processes and become DNA and eventually evolve into cells. From there new cells will only come from old cells, but the original cell was first non-living matter, which through chemical change became amino acids, then DNA, then a very simple organism. Rotten meat doesn't turn into flies, but there's nothing spontaneous about these chemical changes, it's actually been scientifically proven that you can create amino acids from non-living matter.

You don't know, you believe. Please keep your unprovable beliefs out of scientific discussion.


yo homeboy.... dont tell me to keep my beliefs out of this. the holy spirit is proven. Go to a church sometime and see it for urself....:rolleyes:

what about different elements coming together for the first time on earth under the conditions that permit them to combine (maybe they haven't until now reached an atomsphere than can let them react in the ways that we use them in this day and age) to make the essential necessities of life, such as hydrogen and oxygen. eventually (over a long and slow process) they evolve into what we have today.

yo homeboy.... dont tell me to keep my beliefs out of this. the holy spirit is proven. Go to a church sometime and see it for urself....:rolleyes:

it's proven to you because you believe it to be proven. it isn't to the next person because they believe it isn't. it's all a matter of beliefs, if you believe something enough you will consider it fact. if you want to title you belief fact then by all mean so, but you will never prove it to someone who things otherwise.

You don't know, you believe. Please keep your unprovable beliefs out of scientific discussion.

Scientific discussions suppose beliefs. Talk origins is one of the biggest proofs of this with their philosophical presuppositions which they insist that it's not true.

i was just thinking, if you can believe in a god that has lasted forever then why not believe in a universe that has lasted forever. some philosiphers believe that the big bang was not the first big bang at all, but part of the cyclical life of the universe. it oscillates. it expands from an event such as the big bang and then contracts under its own gravity and then the big bang happens all over again and it expands again.

yo homeboy.... dont tell me to keep my beliefs out of this. the holy spirit is proven. Go to a church sometime and see it for urself....:rolleyes:

This is about science, the holy spirit is not proven, nor disproven, in fact, it is unprovable.

You can post your beliefs if you want, but they are irrelevant and don't have anything to do with science, which you don't believe in anyway.

it's proven to you because you believe it to be proven. it isn't to the next person because they believe it isn't. it's all a matter of beliefs, if you believe something enough you will consider it fact. if you want to title you belief fact then by all mean so, but you will never prove it to someone who things otherwise.


yeah well that is true.

i was just thinking, if you can believe in a god that has lasted forever then why not believe in a universe that has lasted forever. some philosiphers believe that the big bang was not the first big bang at all, but part of the cyclical life of the universe. it oscillates. it expands from an event such as the big bang and then contracts under its own gravity and then the big bang happens all over again and it expands again.

I think that a universe which has always existed makes as much sense as a creator who has always existed. Maybe more, because we definitely know that the universe exists, which cannot be said for supernatural power.

I think you have a nice way of thinking of it.

I think that a universe which has always existed makes as much sense as a creator who has always existed. Maybe more, because we definitely know that the universe exists, which cannot be said for supernatural power.

I think you have a nice way of thinking of it.

yeah their both absurd thoughts, but if you think about it. one of them has to be true. that makes it even more fuckin weird, for lack of better words.

it's proven to you because you believe it to be proven. it isn't to the next person because they believe it isn't. it's all a matter of beliefs, if you believe something enough you will consider it fact. if you want to title you belief fact then by all mean so, but you will never prove it to someone who things otherwise.


I think there is a definite difference between knowledge and belief. I believe in evolution, because there is evidence to back it up, but it has not been proven.

Also, I believe, that beliefs with no (real) evidence do not hold as much merit as beliefs with evidence, or knowledge, despite the value to the individual who possesses them.

yeah their both absurd thoughts, but if you think about it. one of them has to be true. that makes it even more fuckin weird, for lack of better words.

To make it more fucked up, I don't believe we'll ever actually know for sure which is true. It is impossible to prove things which are beyond the scope of the scientific method, such as a supernatural being not limited to the laws of science, or the concept of infinity.

To make it more fucked up, I don't believe we'll ever actually know for sure which is true. It is impossible to prove things which are beyond the scope of the scientific method, such as a supernatural being not limited to the laws of science, or the concept of infinity.

you say this like we have reached the pinnacle of science know to man.

Yeah, I thought of this kind of question as well. My question was: What caused the first self-replicating cell, and why does it self-replicate? I didn't get many responses at an older board I use to go to, so I hope this gets answered here.

you say this like we have reached the pinnacle of science know to man.

Of course we haven't reached the pinnacle of science, I'm saying science can not shed light on something which is beyond scientific reason.

I think that a universe which has always existed makes as much sense as a creator who has always existed. Maybe more, because we definitely know that the universe exists, which cannot be said for supernatural power.

I think you have a nice way of thinking of it.

Makes more sense? Depends on your basis on that matter. Judging from what you just said, you don't like the thought of having a God to rule over your life. This is the case for many. You can deny this all you want but there is something that makes your mind think that way.

By the way, i've been researching this theory and so far there is not the slightest evidence or such an event. Mainly theoretical imagination. Interesting how many people avoid the possibility of a beginning.

I think there is a definite difference between knowledge and belief. I believe in evolution, because there is evidence to back it up, but it has not been proven.

Also, I believe, that beliefs with no (real) evidence do not hold as much merit as beliefs with evidence, or knowledge, despite the value to the individual who possesses them.

No one in their right mind believes something without any evidence or personal conviction (not necessarily evidence for others but applies to this person). Thus it's possible to back up faith with evidence.

Yeah, I thought of this kind of question as well. My question was: What caused the first self-replicating cell, and why does it self-replicate? I didn't get many responses at an older board I use to go to, so I hope this gets answered here.

It would be better to go to a non-teen thread which i have done such as philosophy. Stay ahead of the gang :D

Makes more sense? Depends on your basis on that matter. Judging from what you just said, you don't like the thought of having a God to rule over your life. This is the case for many. You can deny this all you want but there is something that makes your mind think that way.

By the way, i've been researching this theory and so far there is not the slightest evidence or such an event. Mainly theoretical imagination. Interesting how many people avoid the possibility of a beginning.


Aye. I don't think one is more likely than the other, I think that they are equally likely. When you go that far back, It's all just imagination and hypothesis. Nothing to prove and other than the matter and energy we have now, no evidence to work with.

Aye. I don't think one is more likely than the other, I think that they are equally likely. When you go that far back, It's all just imagination and hypothesis. Nothing to prove and other than the matter and energy we have now, no evidence to work with.

True in some sense but at least us Christians (muslims and jews too) have some arguments pertaining to the existence of God.

It would be better to go to a non-teen thread which i have done such as philosophy. Stay ahead of the gang :D

There are (some) suprisingly bright and accepting people here. Though, if you could direct me to the board your talking about, I would be most greatfull (sp?).

There are (some) suprisingly bright and accepting people here.


I am not implying that people here are stupid. It's just that there is a lot more experienced and intelligent people elsewhere that we can learn from.


Though, if you could direct me to the board your talking about, I would be most greatfull (sp?).

Sure here it is: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

I am not implying that people here are stupid. It's just that there is a lot more experienced and intelligent people elsewhere that we can learn from.

Oh, no. I didn't mean to make it look that way. My bad.

Sure here it is: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/

Thank ya very very much.:D I'm gonna go there right now:pink:

Oh, no. I didn't mean to make it look that way. My bad.



Thank ya very very much.:D I'm gonna go there right now:pink:

NP, tell me what you think about it. Pretty technical forum but i love stuff like that.

Weren't bacteria found on Mars? A meteorite found that had came from Mars had crystals that can only be produced by bacteria.

Unless God put them there this does provide evidence that under different conditions, life could have been generated.

Of course the earth has been through endless different conditions in the past, and our scientific knowledge is by no means at it's peak.

NP, tell me what you think about it. Pretty technical forum but i love stuff like that.
:eek2: It's very humbling to be in the presence of so many informed people. I like the set up, and I like the atmosphere. And I looked through a few threads, and it looks like I will learn A LOT from them. Awesome site, Thanks much for directing me there:D

Weren't bacteria found on Mars? A meteorite found that had came from Mars had crystals that can only be produced by bacteria.

Unless God put them there this does provide evidence that under different conditions, life could have been generated.

Of course the earth has been through endless different conditions in the past, and our scientific knowledge is by no means at it's peak.

Its very possible that life may have been, or was in the process of developing when any number of catastrophies could have ruined it. Or that it is very close to being habitable. Or that bacteria there is evolving to withstand the harsh atmosphere of of the red brother. It does bring up some intresting questions.

Weren't bacteria found on Mars? A meteorite found that had came from Mars had crystals that can only be produced by bacteria.


I saw something on the science channel that discusses this but there is no life there.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/mars.asp

Might think that this is a bias website but this particular subject is objective.

Atheists know that life can't just be formed for something non-living so they look for other alternatives.


Unless God put them there this does provide evidence that under different conditions, life could have been generated.


Life could be generated under different conditions but as far as we know, there is nothing but us. Of course, there are tons of other planets and solar systems to investigate.


Of course the earth has been through endless different conditions in the past, and our scientific knowledge is by no means at it's peak.

Scientists have created amino acids. Lol. Ok.

Where did they get their base materials. Scientists helped make super glue but that means they had to get their components from somewhere.

Evolution, fine, good, well. Athiestic evolution: A bunch of people trying really hard not to see the elephant in the room. (God)

Scientists have created amino acids. Lol. Ok.

Where did they get their base materials. Scientists helped make super glue but that means they had to get their components from somewhere.Amino acids are a step in the right direction to finding the recipe of life.

And, the base materials are the elements present in our world, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc. All of which were formed by radioactive decay of isotopes.

Evolution, fine, good, well. Athiestic evolution: A bunch of people trying really hard not to see the elephant in the room. (God)I'm confused about this statement.

Are you implying that atheists don't want to have faith in God ?

Because I can assure you it's very much the opposite in some cases.

The point you make in your opening post avoids certain points. Cells are generated from cells, not non-living matter. However, nonliving matter can be made into amino acids through chemical processes and become DNA and eventually evolve into cells.

Hold on there. Are you saying that with time, life will arise from non-life? I think you are ignoring the extreme complexity of even the simplest life. Even 'very simple organisms' take reactions that do not occur normally. Chemical affinity does not account for the creation of life from amino acids.

There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules."

That's why I'm sitting this thread out, most people assume Abiogenesis is:


molecules -> Fully functional bacteria complete with flagellum.


But it's most likely not that, it's a series of steps.


Scientific discussions suppose beliefs. Talk origins is one of the biggest proofs of this with their philosophical presuppositions which they insist that it's not true.
Talk Origins is an evolution site, which evolution has been proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Before you go about saying they assume life came from non-life the only set of articles they have about Abiogenesis is " Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs." Mainly targeted at the misconceptions of creationist.

molecules -> Fully functional bacteria complete with flagellum.


But it's most likely not that, it's a series of steps.


Of course its not. But those series of steps are each extremly, extremly unlikely. Each step. When you take each of those steps and multiply them together to get the probabiltity, the chances become absolutly nil. I believe that there is simply to much complexity for blind chemical affinity and luck to create even the simplest life. Until someone can convince me otherwise, I believe I stick with that. I refuse to accept life from non-life at it's present explanation.

Of course its not. But those series of steps are each extremly, extremly unlikely. Each step. When you take each of those steps and multiply them together to get the probabiltity, the chances become absolutly nil.It's never nil, and when you multiply that probability with the amount of planets in the universe it goes up a lot.

Talk Origins is an evolution site, which evolution has been proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Before you go about saying they assume life came from non-life the only set of articles they have about Abiogenesis is " Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs." Mainly targeted at the misconceptions of creationist.

Don't give me that "beyond a doubt" junk. That article still has no proof whatsoever of the abiogenesis theory. Something that desperate evolutionists made up. They have their philosophical presuppositions and they continue to deny this.

Don't give me that "beyond a doubt" junk. That article still has no proof whatsoever of the abiogenesis theory. Something that desperate evolutionists made up. They have their philosophical presuppositions and they continue to deny this.
I said evolution has been proven beyond a doubt, not Abiogenesis. Which is why the article on talk origins is named "The probability of Abiogenesis." not "the facts of Abiogenesis"



Of course its not. But those series of steps are each extremly, extremly unlikely. Each step. When you take each of those steps and multiply them together to get the probabiltity, the chances become absolutly nil. I believe that there is simply to much complexity for blind chemical affinity and luck to create even the simplest life. Until someone can convince me otherwise, I believe I stick with that. I refuse to accept life from non-life at it's present explanation.
Each step may be unlikely, and in combination even more unlikely, but there is still a chance. You're basically saying since winning the lottery is unlikely, than winning it ten times in a row is impossible.

I said evolution has been proven beyond a doubt, not Abiogenesis. Which is why the article on talk origins is named "The probability of Abiogenesis." not "the facts of Abiogenesis"


Ok, i understand what you mean now.



Each step may be unlikely, and in combination even more unlikely, but there is still a chance. You're basically saying since winning the lottery is unlikely, than winning it ten times in a row is impossible.

Having something dead make a living cell is 1,000,000 times more unlikely than the lottery. May have exaggerated a bit but it's still true.

Having something dead make a living cell is 1,000,000 times more unlikely than the lottery. May have exaggerated a bit but it's still true.
Well then, we're in luck the earth is buying trillions of lottery tickets a second and the earth has nothing but time.

Hold on there. Are you saying that with time, life will arise from non-life? I think you are ignoring the extreme complexity of even the simplest life. Even 'very simple organisms' take reactions that do not occur normally. Chemical affinity does not account for the creation of life from amino acids.

That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. I'm not ignoring anything, this is proven, scientific fact. I can't remember who the scientist was but there was an experiment in which he used a closed environment containing chemicals in quantities that they were found in in earth's early atmosphere. He applied large amounts of electricity (lightning) sparking chemical reactions that ended in the creation of amino acids purely from non-living materials, while it would be a very long time, like billions of years, for these amino acids to, through chemical change, create DNA and become life forms, it would/did happen. While it can't be proven that this is how life started, it is proven that it is possible to create life from non-life, and it is highly likely to be true.

How could life have started without a Creator of some sort if spontaneous generation does not occur? It could not have. o_0 Easy as that. *knows when there is no point in arguing and leaves*

There is no creator. No I can't back that up, and in truth it's really just my opinion, yet I will state it as fact. K? :;knows I will lose even the most half-assed of arguments to this point and leaves::

That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. I'm not ignoring anything, this is proven, scientific fact. .
Just, so you know, that experiment does not prove Abiogenesis. It provides interesting information, but doesn't prove anything. Just like the lipid pseudo cell experiment(coolio).

I think you are ignoring the extreme complexity of even the simplest life. Even 'very simple organisms' take reactions that do not occur normally.
Well, I know you are ignoring the fact that early life, and the things leading up to it were nothing like the life we have today. Just because you can't see life getting any more simple, doesn't mean life can't.

I think that one of the biggest obstacles is our current definition of life. Perhaps it seems impossible for the steps to have taken place with our current definition, but if we could redefine what life is, it may be very obvious how it worked out.

Just, so you know, that experiment does not prove Abiogenesis. It provides interesting information, but doesn't prove anything. Just like the lipid pseudo cell experiment(coolio).

I also heard that he fudged a little bit on what he thought the early Earth's atmosphere would probably have been.


Well, I know you are ignoring the fact that early life, and the things leading up to it were nothing like the life we have today. Just because you can't see life getting any more simple, doesn't mean life can't.

I wasn't really ignoring it, because I realize that early life would probably not have had mitochondria, or maybe even several other organelles. But looking at it, DNA is not simple. But even with DNA, you do not have a cell. You still have to have the have the capability of producing and/or taking in energy. Then you have to envelop it all in a cell membrane.

I guess that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen...but...even the very simplest of life would be leaps and bounds beyond simple amino acids and proteins.

hey, you said mentioned the amino acid experiment. haha they just proved that life cannot be created. they closed off all the oxygen because it kills the materials. so #1 oxygen could not have existed and #2 creating a few amino accids is like randomly throwing 1million letters on the ground and a book coming out of it. there has to be many many more and more complex proteins. they have to work together perferctly the tiniest complecatoin will end in destruction. plz dont mention that experiment its not even relevant.

blinkin said this "yeah their both absurd thoughts, but if you think about it. one of them has to be true. that makes it even more fuckin weird, for lack of better words.
__________________
five senses cannot sense the fact of our existence
and that's the only fact, in fact there are no facts"

okay this statement is ridiculous u said "and that's the only fact, in fact there are no facts" is this statement a fact?? u dont even know you just broke the law of noncondradictory. Are u matter-a-fact that are no facts?

hey, you said mentioned the amino acid experiment. haha they just proved that life cannot be created. they closed off all the oxygen because it kills the materials. so #1 oxygen could not have existed and #2 creating a few amino accids is like randomly throwing 1million letters on the ground and a book coming out of it. there has to be many many more and more complex proteins. they have to work together perferctly the tiniest complecatoin will end in destruction. plz dont mention that experiment its not even relevant.

This thread was over TWO YEARS old. If you have something new to discuss make a new thread, don't bump old ones. Many of the people you are addressing don't even go to this site anymore.

ahaha sry didnt even the age on it, i was just researching for science and came across this page, so i signed up and posted.

ahaha sry didnt even the age on it, i was just researching for science and came across this page, so i signed up and posted.

Well by all means, feel free to join in the community, go make a new thread on whatever you're researching or want to discuss. Just try to avoid bumping old ones in the future.

Well some ppl say that a virus is alive.....i mean it sure acts like it is. But depending on wat u beleive it cant reproduce so others say its not alive.

So i guess if u think about its its possible that a virus type organism was first to get going?? dont ask me wat it fed on.....My point was that it wouldnt have been like life that we see today, it would have been very very simple, like a virus is.

And another point...does anyone no how a totally new virus is created? i havent ever thought about it before.

nvm old thread is old

can't read.

I'm spontaneously generating a boner right now.