Vote to comment and see the results
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 2 years ago

    Can you elaborate? I'm not really sure what your point is. I typed in building blocks of life into Google, and got this first response: "Of the 92 natural elements, 25 are essential for life. Of these, there are six main elements that are the fundamental building blocks of life. They are, in order of least to most common: sulfur, phosphorous, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen." So, are you suggesting you don't get life from non-life elements like sulfur, phosphorous, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen? Or do you mean something else entirely?

    • 2 years ago

      @billj710 I mean that as of date their has not been shown anyway that those elements will spawn a living creation.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ I'm still not sure what you're getting at. So, let me probe. You posit that "You don't get life from non-life." So, my question is where do you get life? If your answer is you get life from life, then my follow-up question is where did you get life before there as any life?

    • 2 years ago

      @billj710 I would tell you, that is a question for another debate.

      I just proposed that no one can show anyway that it is possible to get life from non life. Either you agree or you disagree and then provide reason that you believe it is possible for life to come from non-life.

  • 2 years ago

    You don't get information (e.g. DNA code) from non-minds.

  • 2 years ago

    I disagree, the reason is pretty simple.

    Evidence showed us that at one time on earth there was no life. Then after a time, there was life.

    Thus life must have come from non-life some way. Exactly how, no one knows for certain, but that it did happen is pretty much self evident.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried that’s not self evident or obvious or beyond needing to provide proof.

      If you found ants in your RV, you wouldn’t just except that the ants just appeared. You’d look for the cause, the food that drew them there. You wouldn’t just say “they must have just appeared there. Because they weren’t there before but they are there now.

      It is not logical, not self evident, not rational to believe life spawned from nothing. Because in now way in any manner is that justifiable, repeatable or observable by science and nature.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried what you have is a framework built on assumptions.

      A conclusion does not prove that the premises are true. If the answer is “four” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2+2, 5-1, 11-7, etc.

      What IS observable by science is that we have found now way that life can come from non-life

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ I think you are missing the point.

      Fact: There was no life on earth at one point in time
      Fact: At a later time there was life on earth

      Question: If life cannot come from non-life, how did life come to be on the earth?

      I know that your belief is that God created life on earth, but that is still life being created from non-life. God even says in the bible that Adam came from the dust. So even in your religious view, life came from non-life. You just think there was a supernatural agent involved rather than natural laws.

      So I think even under your own beliefs, the resoulion as written is wrong.

    • 2 years ago

      Negative, I'll have to disagree with you on that one. Life can be created with the assistance of outside forces or entities.

      Scientists can create clones. A supreme being can create humans. People and animals can have children. Bees assist in cross-pollination.

      However left up to itself, if you leave any type of chemicals you want in any kind of situation you chose all by themselves, life will not suddenly generate from materials that are not living.

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ That is not what your resolution really says. It just says life can't come from non-life. The only alternative would be that life has always existed.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried interesting, very interesting

    • 2 years ago

      @the_peoples_champ But on the point I think you are really trying to make...

      You are completely correct that science doesn't have an answer for abiogenesis yet. They have ideas, and it is an area of ongoing research. Some progress has been made at re-creating the chemical components needed, but not in assembling them.

      But that doesn't mean it can't happen or didn't happen. It just means it is a question that science has not yet answered. But science does have an incredible track record of finding out the answers to questions when enough time and effort are applied to the problem.

      Which is not to say who's right, it is legitimately an open question in science, though one long closed in religious circles.

      But for me, I put a lot of "stock" in science as it proves again and again to be an effective method for learning information that proves useful, as where I find religion has a very shaky track record in making any kind of prediction or learning new things.

  • 2 years ago

    I encourage you to watch the full ten minutes of this interview(10 minutes). However, there is one aspect of the interview that is most important regarding your thread here. It is that Tyson goes on to say that when we reach the scientific frontier of the unknown, that often "God" is used to explain the unknown by the religious fanatic base.

    From what I can examine from your views, you seem to invoke the notion that life has to come from life because we don't have any evidence to the contrary. And I'm not sure how I see that as different from the religious base when they invoke "God" as the explanation of the unknown or undiscovered.

    Btw. The part I'm speaking about begins at the 7:45 mark. Have a listen.