Creation or Evolution? ( Serious question for Evolutionists....)

[EpiPaul03]

I'm just starting this discussion, so bare with me. I have a degree in molecular biology, and I am now doing my M.Sc. in Biology. I just want to pose the question: what is living matter? Are we talking about organic molecule? Or more specifically biological molecules? Or whole cells? Or tissues? The term "living matter" makes no sense, as molecules don't live. As far as cells evolving out of non-cells, there are very good models on how that happened.

It's a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION: How did dead stuff make things that could move and that were alive...that could respond to a stimulus, etc.

How did a frog squirrel have butt sex with a monkey to make us humans?

[17 Tubes]

I'm just starting this discussion, so bare with me. I have a degree in molecular biology, and I am now doing my M.Sc. in Biology. I just want to pose the question: what is living matter? Are we talking about organic molecule? Or more specifically biological molecules? Or whole cells? Or tissues? The term "living matter" makes no sense, as molecules don't live. As far as cells evolving out of non-cells, there are very good models on how that happened.

I think he means the actual cells or tissue.


I din't think he means the building blocks...I'd like to hope he knows there was some chemistry about the Earth, even if it WAS 6,000 years ago...


How did the chemistry turn into biology, savvy?

[EpiPaul03]

How did the chemistry turn into biology, savvy?

 

 

 

Thank you!!

[blargh]

Thank you!!

 

Biology IS, at its core, chemistry. A living organism is big electrochemical machine. Why is this so hard to understand?

[indespise]

It's a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION: How did dead stuff make things that could move and that were alive...that could respond to a stimulus, etc. How did a frog squirrel have butt sex with a monkey to make us humans?

Nothing is dead, on a subatomic level everything is energy. What you're thinking of when you say "living" are complex organisms built from lots of "dead" (in your definition) material.

[SteveVHT]

Just stepped in to cut a nice fart...

***BRRRRRRRRRRPT****

Thanks, I feel better now

[Fl00]

 

Biology IS, at its core, chemistry. A living organism is big electrochemical machine. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

 

My friends and I have joked about things like this before, and it turns out it has far too much truth in it:

 

at high levels,

Biology turns into chemistry

Chemistry turns into physics

Physics turns into ridiculous mathematics combined with "WHY DO PEOPLE STUDY THESE THINGS?"

[ThrashmetalErik]

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?

 

 

Perhaps a high power created the first life and then it evolved from their?

 

Compromise?

[Ostracized]

It's a VERY SIMPLE QUESTION: How did dead stuff make things that could move and that were alive...that could respond to a stimulus, etc. How did a frog squirrel have butt sex with a monkey to make us humans?

I think you are trolling. Either that or you do not understand what "life" and "death" actually means.

Is a rock dead? Is DNA alive?

Dead stuff did not just turn into living stuff - but it did arrange itself as per the laws of the universe, which eventually gave rise to a self-organising, entropy-resistant complex, called LIFE.

[pink freud]

we will soon have the technology to do some experiaments about this very question. observe this picture:



that is part of a dustmite, walking over a cog.

that cog was made using nanotechnology.

we will eventually be skilled enough with nanotechnology that we can construct a bacteria, molecule by molecule.

if we succeed, we shall be able to see if life CAN be made using the basic elements it is made of.

[EpiPaul03]

Nothing is dead, on a subatomic level everything is energy. What you're thinking of when you say "living" are complex organisms built from lots of "dead" (in your definition) material.

 

 

 

Honestly, I don't care anymore. You guys know exactly what I meant by the original question, I don't know how else to say it. Half of the people read my original post and automatically assumed I was out to disprove evolution. That was NOT my intented purpose but as the thread went along various subjects came up so of course the inevitable happened. I wanted to hear what people actually thought and not people starting a creationist vs intelligent deisgn vs evolutionist war. I can read a book on it anyday, I can read an article anyday. I just thought I'd hear what ordinary people thought. But that's too much to {censored}ing ask without WWIII breaking out.

 

Sorry I started all this, I know now never to post a question like this ever again because in the long run it will just lead to God vs No God. It should not be this way, we should be able to get along better than this. Some of the comments and remarks (myself included) are just flat out rude towards others. I appreciate the few who actually answered honestly and were not judgmental of me, thank you for your insights. As for the others, I asked for it and again I apologize if I offended anyone. Science is an interesting, exciting feild that I will be entering within a year or so in college. I will NOT however, abandon my religious faith because something in science can "disprove" it. Not discrediting science, but crediting my faith more.

 

God bless

[Ostracized]

Honestly, I don't care anymore. You guys know exactly what I meant by the original question, I don't know how else to say it. Half of the people read my original post and automatically assumed I was out to disprove evolution. That was NOT my intented purpose but as the thread went along various subjects came up so of course the inevitable happened. I wanted to hear what people actually thought and not people starting a creationist vs intelligent deisgn vs evolutionist war. I can read a book on it anyday, I can read an article anyday. I just thought I'd hear what ordinary people thought. But that's too much to {censored}ing ask without WWIII breaking out. Sorry I started all this, I know now never to post a question like this ever again because in the long run it will just lead to God vs No God. It should not be this way, we should be able to get along better than this. Some of the comments and remarks (myself included) are just flat out rude towards others. I appreciate the few who actually answered honestly and were not judgmental of me, thank you for your insights. As for the others, I asked for it and again I apologize if I offended anyone. Science is an interesting, exciting feild that I will be entering within a year or so in college. I will NOT however, abandon my religious faith because something in science can disprove it. Not discredited science, but crediting my faith more. God bless

 

 

The reason why you are getting unsatisfactory answers is because your question is flawed. There is no such thing as living or dead matter. There is just matter - and in some cases it is arranged into life.

 

I have no problem with the evolution debate, but those involved have to at least a basic knowledge of chemistry and biology.

[blargh]

Science is an interesting, exciting feild that I will be entering within a year or so in college. I will NOT however, abandon my religious faith because something in science can "disprove" it. Not discrediting science, but crediting my faith more.

 

Science couldn't possibly discredit God, because it only deals with the physical realm. If you're not reading the Bible literally (which seems to me a very silly thing to do), they are not difficult to reconcile, I don't understand why so many fundamentalist Christians are hostile to it.

[gdwill2u]

nicely put while i dont really agree with your beliefs, i do totally respect you and your beliefs. rock on brother!

Thank you:wave:

[grayeyes777]

Couple of points... Of course, in my lab, I was a lowly grad student...so I didn't have access to the machinery which can make matter out of "nothing". Yes, it's true, matter can be made out of nothing. It's done in massive particle accelerators. Granted, the matter created is so miniscule and fleeting, but it's there. It's done at extremely high energy levels, and I'm not a physicist, so I can't give details, unfortunately. Second, I have a hard time finding any real documentation of miracles. I'd like to see a video of a limb re-growing (to my knowledge, a severed limb has never re-grown. Maybe you can point me to some credible documentation?). Yes, cancer can go into remission when the statistics are slim, but I'd like to see documentation where stage IV metastatic lung cancer goes into remission. As a scientist, I've never read of anything like that. Same goes for AIDS---there hasn't been a single documented case of viral load dropping to zero with no medical treatment. .

 

 

 

Well to start off... i take it that a particle accelerator accelerates particles... and if it does, a particle is not "nothing"... anyway....

 

 

here's a start on the miracle thing...

 

http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/miracles5.htm

[Fl00]

Well to start off... i take it that a particle accelerator accelerates particles... and if it does, a particle is not "nothing"... anyway....

 

 

He's probably talking about the after-effects of collisions of certain particles.

[niceguy]

Well to start off... i take it that a particle accelerator accelerates particles... and if it does, a particle is not "nothing"... anyway.... here's a start on the miracle thing... http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/miracles5.htm

 

Yes, a particle accelerator accelerates a particle, which is matter. But through the use of these machines, you can make something out of "nothing." A particle will appear which is not made out of anything else.

 

I read the page on "miracles," and it's very unconvincing. See, being scientific means not accepting anything unless it can be proven over and over in a very controlled situation. These examples give on the webpage are completely useless---for all I know, they're completely made up by the author. Where's the medical reports, the histological slides, the lab values? Where's anything other than "this dude was really sick, the doctors said nothing could be done, we called the preacher, and now the dude is cured."

 

I went to www.pubmed.gov (which is the standard database of medical literature) and I could find nothing to corroborate these tales. I've never once read an article in a peer-reviewed science journal which can back up miracles.

I'm sorry, but from a scientific point of view, these are nothing more than fables that "I heard from a guy who knew the guy who heard a woman at the salon tell about maybe hearing this story."

 

And that's exactly how religious "facts" about miracles get established. Who said Jesus walked on water? Well, some guy heard it from some guy who might have seen it who wrote about it years after it happened.

 

If it's not reproducible, it's not a fact.

 

If a miracle happened, and if I were in the ER room when it happened, you'd better believe I'd document anything and everything that happened, and I'd send the findings off to every medical journal in the country. I think pretty much any medical professional would do that. The fact that there's nothing out there speaks poorly for the concept of religious miracles. If the miracles are happening, then why is there no documentation at all?

 

And I'm sorry if I'm coming across as antagonistic---I just love the religion vs science debates!

[niceguy]

Oh and BTW I'm not an atheist, nor an agnostic.

 

But I refuse to believe anything about God that other people tell me. I'll make my own opinions, and I'm sure God doesn't give a {censored} either way.

 

[riffy]

I am going to ask one simple question. I will not reply in this thread again as it goes no where but simply is silly.

Why, just simply why are most of the posters here so arrogant? They ALL think they know what they are talking about. Most of you simply haven't a clue.

The people on the science side stoop to calling others who don't agree with every view they espouse stupid and ignorant fundies.
The people on the "God" side of the equation try an explaining why they believe the way they do but are simply ridiculed...

It is honestly shameful...

Gary

PS. If I happen to desire intelligent discourse about anything scientific or spiritual, this is the LAST place I would come to seek answers...LOL, you all make me laugh.

[grayeyes777]

here's another...

you have to see part 2-4 as well.

[The Realm]

your avatar is making my pants fit all tight and stuff

 

 

 

 

+1:love:

[The Realm]

Just stepped in to cut a nice fart... ***BRRRRRRRRRRPT**** Thanks, I feel better now

I like VHT's

[rememberduane]

 

I am going to ask one simple question. I will not reply in this thread again as it goes no where but simply is silly. Why, just simply why are most of the posters here so arrogant? They ALL think they know what they are talking about. Most of you simply haven't a clue. The people on the science side stoop to calling others who don't agree with every view they espouse stupid and ignorant fundies. The people on the "God" side of the equation try an explaining why they believe the way they do but are simply ridiculed... It is honestly shameful... Gary PS. If I happen to desire intelligent discourse about anything scientific or spiritual, this is the LAST place I would come to seek answers...LOL, you all make me laugh.

 

 

 

Gary, I'm really impressed that that's how you see it.

 

The people on the "God side", if we're going to call it that, are ridiculed for arguing with science that they do not comprehend. The problem is that while God can never be understood (or proven), the science IS understood by many and is empirically proven or inductively justified.

[rememberduane]

To the original poster:

You are like a child stamping his foot. You have been given the, quite clear, explanation that there is no difference between living and nonliving matter -- living organisms are made up of nonliving matter.

It's not that hard to imagine protobionts synthesizing over billions of years from the earth's initial elements, and then becoming prokaryotes, which in turn branched into multicellular organisms, and so on. You understand that evolution branches, it's not linear. The more organisms there are, the more there will be, while others will die out.

In any case -- you have been shown that you didn't have to ask this question here. You have also been shown the fact that your question is flawed. On top of this, I have provided you with a popular, justified theory by top researchers for the origins of life on Earth and you ignored it out of hand because it used the word "might" due to inductive reasoning.

You have shown nothing but ignorance in the face of science (biology is chemistry is physics -- in that order) and a self-righteous attitude, using your high school grades as a validation to try to debunk years of the best and brightest doing research you can barely begin to comprehend. I know you have a huge gap in your scientific (and philosophy of science) knowledge because you entertain books that seek to scientifically prove intelligent design (as you posted in my "what are you reading" thread).

Here's my advice: become a physicist (you will fail, like I said, unless you learn to set your faith aside -- and you, being childish, didn't realize that I don't mean lose your faith, I mean drop your preconceived notions when dealing with science, if you can... from what I've seen I doubt you'll be able to do so). Minor in bio. Go to a respectable school and go to a respectable grad school. Do your research for yourself, using proper scientific method and proper citations and the abundant new technology that will be available then. Do not try to seek scientific proof of God or religion, or you will fail -- that's not anything but a fact, many better/smarter men have failed before you.

Seek to improve the science we have, and use your clout when you have gained it to open questions about the loopholes. Idiots see a loophole and think it destroys the whole thing -- intelligent people find gaps and try to fix them. THEN if they cannot be fixed and the loophole is pivotal to the theory, you have a flaw.

If you truly have questions about this, and still can't comprehend what the scientists in this thread are explaining to you, then 8 years of college will help you to understand the way science works. Being in high school (and seemingly not even an upperclassman), you can't be expected to know much in general.

After your 8 years of university and grad school, actually during, you can perform experiments to satisfy your knowledge. If there is insufficient evidence when you have done more research than a high school physics class and some pop-sci reading, then you can seriously begin to argue with people who know FAR more than you.

[rememberduane]

I agree. Another thing, with science how it is today, I think it's awfully foolish for someone to flat out say there is no God. You can't prove there is a God and at the same time you can't prove there isn't a God. So anyone who says that I just try to ignore it.

 

 

You just show your ridiculous lack of knowledge about the philosophy of science constantly.

 

Does one have to disprove the existence of unicorns? How about magical invisible ogres?

 

Burden of proof is on the affirmative. See my thread about nothing existing.