• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Origin of Life

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
stanley123 said:
Achronos said:
Answer me this question please:

Are dogs and cats self-aware?
I think that to a limited extent they have a certain intelligence and awareness in knowing who is taking care of them.
But I am not sure on what you mean by *self* aware. They know how to lick their paws which I guess they recognise as theirs and not some other cat's or dog's.  However, they are unable to write down a historical report of how they were treated.
To be self-aware, you have to have A. a sense of identity, and B. the ability to reflect upon your actions and thoughts. Both dogs and cats lack this ability. A dog does not know why, fundementally, it wags it's tail, and a cat could not tell you why it plays with a ball of string.

For years, Gorillas have had the ability to communicate to us through sign language. And what did they have to say? Nothing. Just gibberish. Animals do not posses higher brain functions like abstract thinking, or a sense of identity. An animal may interpret something as AINP, but they lack the cognitive ability to interpret it abstractly as PAIN. This isn't conjecture in the least either btw.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Achronos said:
A dog does not know why, fundementally, it wags it's tail, and a cat could not tell you why it plays with a ball of string.
True, they would not know why. But they would be self-aware of their tails, which is seen if you step on it. Of course, humans don't know why for many of their activities. For example,
would a human know why, fundamentally, it goes inside a movie theater and kills innocent children and adults? Do humans know why, fundamentally, there were 37 million casualties during WWI? Could a human tell you why, fundamentally, this war was worth it? And would a human know why, fundamentally, there are 1 billion Moslems who say that Christianity is wrong? And if charity is the main virtue of Christianity, would a human know why, fundamentally, Christians cannot agree and have been split up into warring camps. If charity and peacemaking are major Christian virtues, can anyone tell you why Christian monks have gone around punching each other at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?
BTW, I am not sure about monkeys and elementary sign language. I thought that they were able to give a few basic, extremely elementary signs after extensive training.
Anyway, it is going to depend on your definition of soul, as to whether or not some animals have a soul. Obviously, they are way below the level of a human, but they have some intelligence when it comes to recognising their masters and knowing where in or around the house to look for food and knowing that it is bad to excrete in the house, knowing how to find their way around the neighborhood, etc.
Some people here say animals have "souls" others say no. My guess is that it is going to depend on how you define the soul concept.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
orthonorm said:
IoanC said:
As far as why a fetus is a person, it is really very simple to answer. I think people get stuck in the fact that the fetus is a very early stage of human development. But, the true and full understanding is that no matter what stage a person is in, we are also talking about a soul; we believe that since the moment of conception a new soul joins the universe. Otherwise it's plain to see that the very purpose of conception is to bring new life into the world. What, when one wants children the fetus is good, and when one doesn't want children the fetus is bad? How subjective is that? And then, if you let a fetus grow it will most certainly become an adult, unless external factors come in (such as abortion or illness).  How many of us have not been a fetus at one point? Obviously, all of as have, so we could at least consider the fetus as potential life, if we do not believe the fetus is actually the soul of one who is the image and to become the likeness of God.
I was glad to see someone introduce the notion of the person rather than just human life as such. If we are going to take something resembling a Christian perspective on this, I think asking when human life begins is not the most felicitous of ways to construct the question.

As I've mentioned in other places, the importance placed on persons is what is important within Christianity, not on life as such and not even human life. After all we can see earlier in the thread people able to begin to cut up something like human life so finely that no person we could recognize would remain.

Christians, especially those professing to be Orthodox, claim to believe in a personal God first and foremost. A God who became a human person (note the that personhood not necessarily being tied to being a human) within our time. A God of relations among three persons (please excuse the use of the lowercase as I try to not orthographically introduce a difference not yet made clear). Only one of which is human and divine.

The Orthodox celebrate and pride themselves, if I may dare to use that word here, in emphasizing this radically personal and ontologically relational God and rightfully so. It does seem to be one of the most distinctive characteristics of Orthodoxy, at least to me as I have encountered various Christianities, so to speak.

I would suggest then when and how do we become persons be the operative questions.

Cognomen said:
In other words, most people don't really believe that a recently fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby you can see swimming around in an ultrasound.
All due to respect to what Cognomen was trying to get at here, but I what I see goes to personhood and that somehow persons are born not of mere genetic coupling and genetic development but out of relation to other persons.

Again without getting too sophisticated (not sophistic), each member of the Trinity are persons in virtue of their relation to another member of the Trinity. The most apt relationship being between the Father and the Son. As much as the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, the Father becomes the Father only in virtue of the Son.

We believe in One God, the Father . . .

Before we even profess the Son, He is there allowing God to be what we first call Him, Father.

So if we can admit there is something radically personal about the Christian understanding of God and that personal nature rises somehow out of relations among persons, then we will find our answers I believe in a similar manner for persons as we usually use the word, ourselves.
Coming back to this after more than a week. A long one frankly. Not sure how far I will get tonight as I feel pretty demolished. So I might just make one further expansion on the above.

Most of the comments so far have been tangential. And I am not writing anything systematic. I am writing on the fly. So I apologize if this gets a bit confused.

I hope so far, I am clear in my position.

Whether he enjoys it or not, I will return to Cognomen's comments:

Cognomen said:
In other words, most people don't really believe that a recently fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby you can see swimming around in an ultrasound.
This insight I think is incredibly important in determining personhood. (There will be a bit of a punchline perhaps to this quote, but I don't want to tip what it is yet.)

In short, Cognomen is pointing the obvious fact of our lives, some human life is more personable (in the typical sense and the dumb, strict sense I mean by my emphasis here) to us than others.

We don't need to take a fertilized egg versus a sonogram.

We can say that many human lives for us are simply not quite as personable as others.

My friend Richard is close to me. He is a person.

I open a phonebook (kids google "phonebook" and learn what one is) and look at the names on the page.

In some sense, I believe these names are human lives, but I would be hard pressed to say they are close to me or that they bear much in my life.

I see people often everyday without them being much more than familiar faces occasioned by half remembered names.

I don't know them.
I really don't care about them.

I care a lot about Richard.

I don't think the experience is solely my own. Some humans we know are more personable. They are to a greater extent persons in our lives and not just human lives.

Human beings in a country I have never heard die today in a natural catastrophe. I might wince, frown, say a quick prayer, or sigh tired of hearing such bad news.

The earth shakes where I care for others and my reaction is quite different.

This is all probably seems too obvious and something which does not bear pointing out. Perhaps. I am trying not to be "cryptic".

In short, I think we can all agree some human life is more personable to us. That is to say we encounter those human lives to greater degree as persons.

So personhood is not merely some binary phenomenon. It lies on a continuum with some humans in our world not existing within it for some of us.

(Remember how I pointed out that in virtue of the Persons of the Trinity, personhood is not tied to human being, well human being is neither tied to it.)

No one would argue, at least without sophistry, that human beings I interact with on a daily basis have more or less "human life" in them. But I think it is easy to agree I relate to the many human beings I have contact with in all variety of forms to varying degrees as persons.

It might seem I've just substituted one word for another here and have the same problem.

When does human life begin?

Becomes:

When does personhood begin?

Perhaps it is just a mere nominal change.



 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Obvious less than tangential criticisms can be raised at this point. Some might get answered along the way, others not.

Let's be honest, I am not writing a systematic Orthodox Anthropology here.

So bear with me, if you care to.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Let me be honest.

I am a amateur systematizer. Ethics I find to be boring usually as it asserts way too much and is often not very productive.

Ethics rarely attempts very seriously to account for some of the more odd situational ethical problems which can be invariably raised. Often that is what ethical arguments end up boiling down to, the most absurd yet imaginable situations raised to show the weakness of the ethical system.

Where this goes, might not make the ethicists among us happy, but I think my tact could be very productive in a number of ways. Explaining more than a few of the less than obvious and reasonable beliefs and practices of the Church, while accounting for some of the behavior we often find quite puzzling in children, our own relationships, etc. when it comes to relationships with persons.

In the end, I doubt I will say much that anyone here will disagree with. In fact, many will probably laugh at me and sum everything up in a sentence or two and pat me on my head and send me on my way.

But I have found this general tact I am taking to be productive in terms of opening discourse with many of varying stances along the issues wrapped up in how we relate to persons.
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,563
Reaction score
313
Points
83
Despite orthonorm's words about much of this being obvious, I have found it helpful, and feel like there is more to learn here from further conversation...
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Asteriktos said:
Despite orthonorm's words about much of this being obvious, I have found it helpful, and feel like there is more to learn here from further conversation...
Might be a while before I continue. I dunno more than a week or so. Depends on more than a few things.
 

Asteriktos

Strategos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,563
Reaction score
313
Points
83
Ok, just wanted to let you know that I was getting something out of the thread, even though I wasn't contributing :)
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Kerdy said:
I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.
When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would  answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also? 
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.
When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would  answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also? 
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
NJ
Kerdy said:
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
Good job...welcome to the babble club
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Kerdy said:
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.
When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would  answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also? 
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
They list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.
Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.
When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would  answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?  
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
They list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.
Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.
Start with Louis Pasteur, 1859, spontaneous generation and biogenetic theory.  There are others, but this is usually the best place to begin.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Kerdy said:
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
Good job...welcome to the babble club
Not really.  Read the post to which I replied.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Did someone mention spontaneous generation?

I proved that in my Miller High Life experiment I've mentioned here before.

Whoa . . . in a similar thread to the one which generated this one:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39967.msg648566.html#msg648566
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kerdy said:
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.
When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would  answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?  
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
They list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.
Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.
Start with Louis Pasteur, 1859, spontaneous generation and biogenetic theory.  There are others, but this is usually the best place to begin.
By the way, I am keenly aware of the revisionist definition of abiogenesis as a result.  This sort of thing often happens, especially in the world of evolution.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
NJ
Kerdy said:
minasoliman said:
Kerdy said:
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
Good job...welcome to the babble club
Not really.  Read the post to which I replied.
I did...it wasn't that much of a babble.  I give credence to his post because the title of this thread is misleading.  But you continued to perpetuate into a babble about abiogenesis, which is what this thread isn't about.  But good job, you continue to babble about abiogenesis anyway despite your allegations of other people "babbling" about issues pertaining to when "life begins in an embryo."

You don't have to agree with the arguments made by others to show that the union of sperm and egg does not necessarily prove personhood begins then.  And I don't recall ridiculing you in any of the previous posts I made to your points in this thread.  But you called my posts babbling.  I'm not sure why you complain about being ridiculed then when you make the ridiculing.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Kerdy said:
minasoliman said:
Kerdy said:
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
Good job...welcome to the babble club
Not really.  Read the post to which I replied.
I did...it wasn't that much of a babble.  I give credence to his post because the title of this thread is misleading.  But you continued to perpetuate into a babble about abiogenesis, which is what this thread isn't about.  But good job, you continue to babble about abiogenesis anyway despite your allegations of other people "babbling" about issues pertaining to when "life begins in an embryo."

You don't have to agree with the arguments made by others to show that the union of sperm and egg does not necessarily prove personhood begins then.  And I don't recall ridiculing you in any of the previous posts I made to your points in this thread.  But you called my posts babbling.  I'm not sure why you complain about being ridiculed then when you make the ridiculing.
You make a legitimate point for which I can only accept and offer my apologies.  I was unaware I had done this and it was indeed babbling.  I appreciate your correction and will make every attempt to ensure I do not make this mistake again.  I had not meant my post to be as critical of you as it read.  That was not my intent and I did enjoy our dialogue on the matter.  Please feel free to keep me within my own standards in the future in the event I make any additional slips.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Kerdy said:
Kerdy said:
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.
When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would  answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?  
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
They list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.
Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.
Start with Louis Pasteur, 1859, spontaneous generation and biogenetic theory.  There are others, but this is usually the best place to begin.
By the way, I am keenly aware of the revisionist definition of abiogenesis as a result.  This sort of thing often happens, especially in the world of evolution.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by the revisionist definition of abiogenesis for those of us who are only amateurs and  not professional biologists? For example, I thought that abiogenesis was supposed to be an explanation of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. Of course, many theories have been discredited, but are you saying that all such theories have been conclusively proven to be false?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
NJ
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
Kerdy said:
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
stanley123 said:
Kerdy said:
I thought someone was going to prove the instant life begins.  I am interested in seeing the empirical, irrefutable evidence.
When I looked at the title of this thread, I thought that the discussion was going to be as to whether or not it is possible to create life in a test tube. In other words, for a scientist to take some non-living substances and to mix them up in such a way that you now have something living, even though it may be something extremely elementary. But people here seem to want to talk about other questions such as whether or not a plant has a soul. On such a philosophical question, it is possible to argue in either direction because the definition of soul has not been clarified. And suppose you did clarify the question as to whether or not a plant has a soul, or whether or not a fish has a soul, I don't see how this would  answer the question as to the origin of life, unless you are claiming that all life depends on God implanting a soul in the object. But would this apply to viruses also?  
As I stated, no one has provided an answer, which is no surprise.  People do a fabulous job of attacking others and calling names, but when provided an opportunity to prove their ideas are accurate, failure is always the result.  Nothing more than personal conjecture.  What his thread reveals is a normal and predictable tactic.  Alter the focus of the discussion ever so slightly and then babble about something not related.  One person talks about plants, unrelated, while another talks about fetal survival rates in a laboratory and controlled environment, also unrelated.  This is the very reason I dislike having these discussions.  They begin by telling people how they lack intelligence and end without providing any substance to back up their original claims, which coincidentally is exactly what they demand from others.  It reminds me of a movie which receives all kinds of hype, but when you leave the theater your are thinking, "That's it?". In addition, abiogenesis has been proven false several times.  No one can ever breath life from nothing on their own.
No doubt you have seen the wikipedia article on abiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
They list several current models, many of which are some variation of the primordial soup theory, but have not been proven because they would demand conditions on earth which are not present today. I am not sure why you say that they have been proven false.
Also, there is the extraterrestrial theory, which of course, doesn't answer how life began in the extraterrestrial realm.
Start with Louis Pasteur, 1859, spontaneous generation and biogenetic theory.  There are others, but this is usually the best place to begin.
By the way, I am keenly aware of the revisionist definition of abiogenesis as a result.  This sort of thing often happens, especially in the world of evolution.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by the revisionist definition of abiogenesis for those of us who are only amateurs and  not professional biologists? For example, I thought that abiogenesis was supposed to be an explanation of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. Of course, many theories have been discredited, but are you saying that all such theories have been conclusively proven to be false?
I got an idea!  Let's post a new thread about abiogenesis.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
minasoliman said:
I give credence to his post because the title of this thread is misleading.  But you continued to perpetuate into a babble about abiogenesis, which is what this thread isn't about. 
What is a thread entitled "Origin of Life" supposed to be talking about, except for theories on the origin of life?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
NJ
stanley123 said:
minasoliman said:
I give credence to his post because the title of this thread is misleading.  But you continued to perpetuate into a babble about abiogenesis, which is what this thread isn't about. 
What is a thread entitled "Origin of Life" supposed to be talking about, except for theories on the origin of life?
I thought you might have picked up on the fact that it's a misleading title.  This thread is about an embryo's personhood, not about abiogenesis.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
minasoliman said:
stanley123 said:
minasoliman said:
I give credence to his post because the title of this thread is misleading.  But you continued to perpetuate into a babble about abiogenesis, which is what this thread isn't about. 
What is a thread entitled "Origin of Life" supposed to be talking about, except for theories on the origin of life?
I thought you might have picked up on the fact that it's a misleading title.  This thread is about an embryo's personhood, not about abiogenesis.
OK. I get it now. This thread which is entitled "Origin of Life" is not about origin of life.
 
Top