The EVOLUTION thread! (page 8)

VampireDCLXV

I believe life originated from non-living matter. There is no real distinction between the two.

That is your right to believe. I think Gerard and many others (Dawkins included) might beg to differ...

V665

Deputy Dog

Burn

I believe life originated from non-living matter. There is no real distinction between the two.

This may sound like foolish question? What do you mean by "life"? I guess what I'm getting at is when I die, we can die without a loss of matter. We can have all the ingredients (matter) for life, but still not have life.

BurnTheShips

I think Gerard and many others (Dawkins included) might beg to differ...

Vampire, you would be well served to read and learn a bit on the field (with an open mind.) Then, at least, your opinions would be well founded.

This link describes some of Dawkins idea on the subject of abiogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Other_models

What do you mean by "life"?

That which replicates, has a metabolism, and adapts to the environment.

BTS

PS: My answer to DDs post below is "Yes." But I am out of posts! If we made a machine that could do these things, it would be (artificial) life!

What would the basic difference be between such a machine and the most primitive living things?

Food for thought:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

leavingwt

NOTE: Young Earth Creationism is not compatible with biological evolution, which requires billions of years. That is all. Carry on.

Deputy Dog

That which replicates, has a metabolism, and adapts to the environment.

So if we build a machine to do these things, you think it will be alive?

VampireDCLXV

So if we build a machine to do these things, you think it will be alive?

Good question DD. What say you Burn?

V665

leavingwt

BTS is out of posts. Please see his revised comments above.

VampireDCLXV

Ah, but Burn, is it truly alive? Hard to say. Someone with intelligence still had to build it. It didn't build itself, did it? It's a real quandary for me.

I still find it hard to swallow that the universe and all that is in it can be explained by materialistic explanations alone. Perhaps I'll need more time to contemplate it (if not an eternity)...

Good day all. I'm done. Burn, maybe I'll come back to this again when you have more posts to work with...

V665

notverylikely

I think you answered your own question NVL (sort of)...

How so?

Eugenics, the atomic bomb, genetic splicing, etc. Need I go on? These have all resulted in terrible crimes against humanity.

Ah, I see, you don't like some of the applications science has ben turned to. That has nothing to do with the science itself.

Scientists (and people in general) should be able to present their views without fear of constant attack and vicious mockery, which goes beyond heathy debate...

They are able to. If they weren't, then there wouldn't be any scientists. Of course, people being involved, that happens sometimes, but it certainly isn't common.

Well, how about biological weapons, for one? Scientists are wading into deep waters. Messing around with things they don't have a sufficient understanding of, and doing so with near reckless abandon.

Or curing cancer, genetic diseases, growing new body parts for injured people. BTS' hammer illustration fit nicely. And while, again, people being involved, sometimes things are reckless, but in general the scenario you are describing doesn't happen, but in times past when ethics and moral were a bit more sketchy it certainly did, but that was the exception.

I didn't say that science is evil. It's like a machine, it doesn't have a conscience.

Science is a process to do things. It doesn't nothing on it's on. It's not like a machine you can turn on. People DO science.

notverylikely

Someone with intelligence still had to build it. It didn't build itself, did it? It's a real quandary for me.

True, because it's artificial. The same question equally applies to God. If he was complex enough to make life, then he is complex enough to have required a makeer himself, and if THAT being was complex enough to design God, then IT is so complex it must have had a maker, so on and so forth.

The EVOLUTION thread!

Share this