Members EpiPaul03 Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 This isn't to troll, not to necessarily start an arguement either. (although it's inevitable). But can someone who believes in the theory of evolution explain to me this question:How does non-living matter become living matter? Has this ever been witnessed as a fact, or is it just assumed it happened that way? You see, we can see species adapt and change over time, but have we ever seen an instance where non-living matter has developed into living organisms? EDIT**- To restate the question:How does non-living matter develop to for a living organism? How did things organize? Did they randomly organize into organisms? -After learning some things, I thought restated the question may help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Scientists search for "organic compounds" that make up all known living matter. All life on earth is made from these basic carbon compounds. You may hear refrences to "primordial soup" which is basically pools of these organic compounds where "life" may have begun. No one knows how, which is why we keep looking for answers. Probably the most important aspect of research into deep space, other planets, ect, is that it is really an attempt to explain how life began. Of course, it's much easier to simply say, "God did it", then put the time, thought, creativity, and effort into trying to figure it all out. It's odd that life at its epitome strives hardest to know itself. -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RupertB Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AMSnell Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thri11_H0use Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 This isn't to troll, not to necessarily start an arguement either. (although it's inevitable).But can someone who believes in the theory of evolution explain to me this question:How does non-living matter become living matter? Has this ever been witnessed as a fact, or is it just assumed it happened that way?You see, we can see species adapt and change over time, but have we ever seen an instance where non-living matter has developed into living matter? As others have said, carbone compounds are the basic building blocks of life. No one knows how it all started. Scientists have no problem admitting that. Infact, the very fact that we dont know compells us to keep searching for answers. Much more interesting than the "God did it" explaination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members indespise Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 On a sub-atomic level, everything is comprised of constantly moving energy, whether or not we think of it as living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dave Owens Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 they have proven that Dolphins were once 4 legged animals..it now swims in the ocean...every single once of us were born in liquid (womb)..but we breath oxygen when were born...doesnt that mean we can process liquid thru our lungs.?..(like say fish.?)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 How do you define living and unliving matter? It's the same stuff... "living" matter is just organic compounds arranged in such a way that they can undergo all the processes and chemical reactions we associate with living organisms. What about viruses... they are unliving, as you would call them, but they reproduce, evolve, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members exafro Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 To throw a wrench in the works:Pope John Paul III said that the theory of evolution and the idea that a higher being made the universe are compatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Evolutionists? Can you say pathetic attempt to marginalize science and bring it down to the same level as bull{censored} creationism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members diddlybo Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 I predict at least 10 pages for this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soc_monki Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Another question, Why did we evolve into both male and female?!?With the theroy of 'survival of the fittest', it would be easier(but not as fun) to have just one sex.Peace out. we evolved into male and female (and also notice that most other living organisms have done the same, from plants to insects to us!) to broaden the gene pool. think about it...if we just reproduced asexually (such as many single-celled organisms) by budding or dividing, you are just creating another organism which is "new" but which is basically the same as the "old" one. wheres the fun in that? wheres the exciting twists that mixing genes has? there is none. by having 2 sexes, you get the gene mingling, which also allows for MUCH faster evolution and adaptation. one big problem is that many people who would have been taken out of the gene pool many years ago by diseases or disorders (the weak) are being kept alive and strong by our intelligence (medical advancements). i think this is a double-edged sword...on one hand were advancing our technology and health, but on the other were overpopulating the planet and weakening the gene pool. im sure it will start a great moral debate on whether "weak" genes should be allowed to carry on and multiply, or should we prevent that, or whatever. but they are working on eradicating many genetic diseases which would stop a lot of that stuff (gene therapy), so i guess that is kinda like artificial evolution LOL im rambling here...ill just get to the point. SEX IS FUN!!! and a great workout. theres your answer LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 one big problem is that many people who would have been taken out of the gene pool many years ago by diseases or disorders (the weak) are being kept alive and strong by our intelligence (medical advancements). i think this is a double-edged sword...on one hand were advancing our technology and health, but on the other were overpopulating the planet and weakening the gene pool. im sure it will start a great moral debate on whether "weak" genes should be allowed to carry on and multiply, or should we prevent that, or whatever. but they are working on eradicating many genetic diseases which would stop a lot of that stuff (gene therapy), so i guess that is kinda like artificial evolution LOL It's not just medical advances, but our social structure has insisted on creating laws to protect people from themselves. This means that stupid people, who would normally do stupid things and kill themselves off, are being protected and allowed to procreate. Even more importantly, it is proven that people with low IQ's breed far more rapidly then people with higher IQ's. As a species, we are DEvolving, and have been for at least the last 60 years. I wonder what we'll end up as, or if we'll return to the sea. -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 On a sub-atomic level, everything is comprised of constantly moving energy, whether or not we think of it as living. atoms moving at varying speeds comprising differing physical objects...kinda lika an atomic illusion. oh, wait....where did the atoms come from? and 'Who' started them in motion? and 'Who' sustains them? and....and....and... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 It's not just medical advances, but our social structure has insisted on creating laws to protect people from themselves. This means that stupid people, who would normally do stupid things and kill themselves off, are being protected and allowed to procreate. Even more importantly, it is proven that people with low IQ's breed far more rapidly then people with higher IQ's. As a species, we are DEvolving, and have been for at least the last 60 years. I wonder what we'll end up as, or if we'll return to the sea. -W I remember reading about Adolph Hitler having similar thoughts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ThomasD Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Evolutionists? Can you say pathetic attempt to marginalize science and bring it down to the same level as bull{censored} creationism? Not so, just as there are schools of thought among other sciences (e.g. Freudian v.s. Jungian psychology) you could group other sciences by theory. Not saying that it's a commonly held distinction, but to decry one form of pigeon-holing over another seems a tad over sensetive. The real issue is that evolution does not, and cannot address the origins of life. Before you can begin to answer the underlying question you need to define just what you would call living matter. Many people do not even consider virii to be living matter, even thought they contain DNA (or RNA) and can self replicate in the proper environment. Until you define 'living matter' the question will remain a game of ever shifting goal posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members EdgeOfDarkness Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 atoms moving at varying speeds comprising differing physical objects...kinda lika an atomic illusion. oh, wait....where did the atoms come from? and 'Who' started them in motion? and 'Who' sustains them? and....and....and... Ever heard of a star nursery ? Why does someone have to make them ? The planet being where it is to the sun provided the means to support life. How many stars do you think exist ? Out of all those stars it would be possible for other planets to sustain life. Stars are born (birth triggered by gravitational instabilities) inside dusty clouds,As they grow up they leave their birth grounds.The closest Star Nursery from earth is 500 light years.It would be possible to have another planet supporting life close to our own solar system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 I remember reading about Adolph Hitler having similar thoughts.. Well crap, according to Godin's law, this thread is over. -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members yabba Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Well crap, according to Godin's law, this thread is over.-W and not a moment too soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Ever heard of a star nursery ? Why does someone have to make them ? The planet being where it is to the sun provided the means to support life. How many stars do you think exist ? Out of all those stars it would be possible for other planets to sustain life. Stars are born (birth triggered by gravitational instabilities) inside dusty clouds,As they grow up they leave their birth grounds.The closest Star Nursery from earth is 500 light years.It would be possible to have another planet supporting life close to our own solar system. if it *IS*, it has an origin. Due to the observable and obvious *LAWS* in our universe we can deduct that complex designs do not come from random and chaotic sources... This does not prove the Christian God, but it is in perfect accordance with what He says in His Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 atoms moving at varying speeds comprising differing physical objects...kinda lika an atomic illusion. oh, wait....where did the atoms come from? and 'Who' started them in motion? and 'Who' sustains them? and....and....and... Most string theorists believe that our "universe" came into existance when two branes collided with one another. This explains why physics has failed to point to a single instance for a "big bang", rather, there were multiple "big bangs" in different locations. Think of it as two flags flapping in the breeze, if they collide, it's likely that multiple points will touch at the same time. It's believed that the collision of these two different dimentions caused what we know of physical matter and energy to come into existance, in the form of violent explosions. Of course, there are many theories. It'd be pretty vain to think that our universe is the only universe in existence though, don't you think? -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members grayeyes777 Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 there's a lady in the water according to m. night shyamalan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Not so, just as there are schools of thought among other sciences (e.g. Freudian v.s. Jungian psychology) you could group other sciences by theory. Not saying that it's a commonly held distinction, but to decry one form of pigeon-holing over another seems a tad over sensetive.The real issue is that evolution does not, and cannot address the origins of life.Before you can begin to answer the underlying question you need to define just what you would call living matter. Many people do not even consider virii to be living matter, even thought they contain DNA (or RNA) and can self replicate in the proper environment. Until you define 'living matter' the question will remain a game of ever shifting goal posts. The point is that the term "evolutionist" implies a competing and equally valid scientific theory. "Intelligent Design" and "creationism" do not count, and those are, I'm sure, what the original poster is implying. If I'm wrong and there are strongly supported *scientific* competing theories, feel free to fill me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members White Falcon Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 P0wN3d! Living matter is just compound Carbon. How do religious people explain that a big guy made everything with his hands? exactly who made the big guy? what is he made of? Oh, I forgot...those are questions that are not supposed to be asked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted January 15, 2007 Members Share Posted January 15, 2007 Of course, there are many theories. It'd be pretty vain to think that our universe is the only universe in existence though, don't you think? -W yea, we humans are 'subjects' and don't have proper access to answer these questions...of course the naturalist/humanist says that only more time and technology is needed to 'ascend' to such knowledge...a metaphorical techno-tower of babel ...I believe they are looking in the wrong place(s) for the wrong reasons and coming to their own conclusions:bor: ...history of our world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.