Tim_Lou Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 lets begin a new topic about this! do you think organic matters come together and form pre-cell....after long period of time it turns into organisms? (but they are not even organisms yet, how can they have characteristics of organisms?) or life cannot be created? it just exist and all lifes come from outer space!!!!!!(wooo!!!! we are all aliens!!) how about god??? god get some atoms and twist them into some sort of stuffs!??? or is it that life is just an accident in this infinite universe for no reason? any comments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by: Tim_Loudo you think organic matters come together and form pre-cell....after long period of time it turns into organisms? (but they are not even organisms yet, how can they have characteristics of organisms?)The biggest problem I have in this discussion is not HOW, but WHAT. WHAt is "life". What make one cell "life" and other 'dead"? If one says that WE are "alive", then all the cells that make us up would be part of that. Yet some cells, such as Hair, is "not alive". Is an iron nail alive? No? But if we taake some of the iron and consume it, our body will turn it into "life" as part of our "living" body. Then when we dispose of it, it becomes "non-life" again? It would seem that "life" does not define things on an atomic nor molecular level? Only on a larger level, such as "cellular"? So where is the surprise that over an extensive period of time, atomic interactions can develop into structures that are comlex enough for us to call it "life"! or life cannot be created? it just exist and all lifes come from outer space!!!!!!(wooo!!!! we are all aliens!!)Well, ALL of our "inner space" (Earth) started as outerspace. how about god???Don't know, haven't heard from him for a long time! Seems while he could not BURN the bush down, some MAN TORE it down. god get some atoms and twist them into some sort of stuffs!???one would wonder why an all powerful god would be required to create a system so poorly designed? Could have used solids modelling instead. or is it that life is just an accident in this infinite universe for no reason?Are we going to include "reason" along with HOW and WHAT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted May 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 ok, i'll change my questions a little bit. what causes life to exist?how does matter begins to reproduce? to organizes, to come together, to grow? and whats the meaning of changing from dead matter into organisms? y does the nature have to do such thing? is it just hydrogen bombarding each other forming carbon, as star dust form the earth, carbon just comes together w/ others and form organisms? well, if so, there is a high possibility that other forms of life exist in the universe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Originally posted by: Tim_Louok, i'll change my questions a little bit.I like your changes. You are putting more thought into it. what causes life to exist?Why does there have to be a "what"? Or is natural process sufficient? how does matter begins to reproduce? to organizes, to come together, to grow? and whats the meaning of changing from dead matter into organisms? y does the nature have to do such thing?It would seem that as the laws of physics stabalized immediately after the BB, in this time/space, a natural order began to take place. Our existence is just a natural occurance of that process. The process does not exist in order for us to have happened. We happened because that is what would come of that process. I have seen the blind archer example given. What are the chances of knowing where an arrow would fall if you blindfolded an archer and he shot the arrow randomly up in the air? It would be 100% if you were standing next to where the arrow already landed! And that is OUR position. We have ALREADY occured, therefore it is a 100% probablity that we would. is it just hydrogen bombarding each other forming carbon, as star dust form the earth, carbon just comes together w/ others and form organisms?yes, yes, yes, yes, ... and ice floating.. well, if so, there is a high possibility that other forms of life exist in the universe...I had reccomended a book previously that explores this. "Probablity One". It explores the Drake Equation. You like math, you'd love this book. Another book I loved on Probablity was "The Power of Logical Thinking: Easy Lessons in the Art of Reasoning...and Hard Facts About Its Absence in Our Lives", Marilyn Vos Savan. Which as the title states, covers lots of oether areas as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 The molecules or life must have originated in space. Here are two recent links on that subject.http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01d.htmlhttp://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Rosetta/SEMFWOWA6QD_0.html There is no such thing as an accident. Everything must have a cause. -- Pandora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 I remember a TV show, probably Nova, that showed a deep sea robot exploration of sea vents. First time we ever had something that could survive the conditions. Camera's showed sulphur vents spewing superheated gasses pouring from under the ocean floor. The amazing things was it was teaming with LIFE. Organizisms that lived in conditions that here to fore we had thought were impossible. Totally changing our defintion of "living conditions", conditions that can support life. Not only was it amazing to see that some basic form of life could live in such "extreme" conditions, but what they found next. Next they cam upon something that looked like tube worms. With some special construction, they came up with a way to suck one of the tubes into a cylinder and seal it. Due to the extreme pressure these organisms live in, they would never survive being brought to the surface without exploding from internal pressure. When brought up for lab research and cut open, they found the vent bacteria inside. The tubes where an organic life that lived off of the waste products of the bacteria. A symbioltic relationship had developed in which the tubes provided a more effecient flow of the gasses for the bacteria to live in and this provided food for the other organic matter. What an incredible example of Evolution. Showing that where a food source/ energy source exists, something will develop to utilize it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted May 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2004 thx to everyone's replies! well, i would love to read some books....but.....gotta have some intensive study about SATI and my AP chemistry! i'll try to find it in library...lol lindagarrette, very interest links...reading it now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 4, 2004 Report Share Posted June 4, 2004 It would seem that as the laws of physics stabalized immediately after the BB, in this time/space, a natural order began to take place. Our existence is just a natural occurance of that process. Please explain the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 From another thread... FreeThinker: “But if you are going to post here, you better be prepared to defend any claims you make.” So why hasn't FreeThinker defended his claim in this thread? Is he exempt from his own rules? FreeThinker: It would seem that as the laws of physics stabalized immediately after the BB, in this time/space, a natural order began to take place. Our existence is just a natural occurance of that process. TeleMad: Please explain the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 TeleMad - what do you expect? The entire history of cosmology? The mainstream big bang theory assumes that the laws of physics formed immediately after the big bang. This may be disputed, but it is hardly an extraordinary claim. That our existence follows as the results of the big bang would be natural, since everything in the universe as we know it was created in the big bang (again, according to the mainstream big bang theory). Freethinker can talk for himself but I see no reason to wonder why a request like "Please explain the details" did not get an answer. Maybe you should try to be more specific - what details are you looking for? Tormod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 That our existence follows as the results of the big bang would be natural, since everything in the universe as we know it was created in the big bang (again, according to the mainstream big bang theory). Virtually nothing in our universe was created in the big bang. For example, neither carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, nor sulfur were created in the big bang: these are 5 of the 6 main biological elements, needed for there to be life. Not only were no animals, plants, or bacteria created in the big bang, but neither were planets, mountains, oceans, rocks, and so on. There is an ENORMOUS gap between the big bang and our existence. Or are you two misusing the term big bang to represent some grand philosophical position – a naturalistic worldview that encompasses all things natural. That’s not what the big bang is/was. That would be as bad as Creationists using the term evolution to mean some kind of a grand philosophical worldview. Freethinker can talk for himself but I see no reason to wonder why a request like "Please explain the details" did not get an answer. Maybe you should try to be more specific - what details are you looking for? FreeThinker’s claim is/was ambiguous and vague…thus, I didn’t have a clear target for which to ask specific details. Now, since FreeThinker seems to not want to give us any details (he is actively posting at this site, but seems to be ignoring this thread he was involved in), I’m forced to make assumptions on his part. My assumption of what FreeThinker is claiming is that the laws of physics naturally produce order of the level needed for life as we know it to arise, persist, and evolve to the state of homo sapiens (hence, “our existence”). Some would question each of those three parts (arise, persists, and evolve), but since this thread is about how life can arise, it is only the first part that is actually relevant. So, I was – and still am - asking FreeThinker to supply the details of how the laws of physics would naturally produce the level of order associated with the simplest, original life. Note that the ability of the laws of physics to produce life spontaneously has never been demonstrated by science – it is a naturalistic assumption, whether right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMadVirtually nothing in our universe was created in the big bang. For example, neither carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, nor sulfur were created in the big bang: these are 5 of the 6 main biological elements, needed for there to be life. Not only were no animals, plants, or bacteria created in the big bang, but neither were planets, mountains, oceans, rocks, and so on. There is an ENORMOUS gap between the big bang and our existence. That is perhaps the most astounding thing I have heard in these forums. Okay, then tell us - where did carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus amd sulfur come from? Or are you two misusing the term big bang to represent some grand philosophical position – a naturalistic worldview that encompasses all things natural. That’s not what the big bang is/was. That would be as bad as Creationists using the term evolution to mean some kind of a grand philosophical worldview. Yes, we have a grand conspiracy going. But your comment begs the question: What was the big bang? Let us have your definition of it. Now, since FreeThinker seems to not want to give us any details (he is actively posting at this site, but seems to be ignoring this thread he was involved in), I’m forced to make assumptions on his part. I see no need for that. You are out on a limb here. So, I was – and still am - asking FreeThinker to supply the details of how the laws of physics would naturally produce the level of order associated with the simplest, original life. Note that the ability of the laws of physics to produce life spontaneously has never been demonstrated by science – it is a naturalistic assumption, whether right or wrong. Where have you been in the past 51 years? Heard of the Stanley Miller experiment? You are very new to these forums, but are coming out as an accusing person who make bold claims and crave evidence yet produces none of it yourself. Take a deep breath and re-read your post above. It would also help with an introduction - who are you? Tormod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 TeleMad: Virtually nothing in our universe was created in the big bang. For example, neither carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, nor sulfur were created in the big bang: these are 5 of the 6 main biological elements, needed for there to be life. Not only were no animals, plants, or bacteria created in the big bang, but neither were planets, mountains, oceans, rocks, and so on. There is an ENORMOUS gap between the big bang and our existence. Tormod: That is perhaps the most astounding thing I have heard in these forums. Okay, then tell us - where did carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus amd sulfur come from? From supernova and hypernova. These are not big bang events - they occur later in the Universe's history. As far as elements, the big bang itself produced only hydrogen and helium (and a smattering of lithium). TeleMad: Or are you two misusing the term big bang to represent some grand philosophical position – a naturalistic worldview that encompasses all things natural. That’s not what the big bang is/was. That would be as bad as Creationists using the term evolution to mean some kind of a grand philosophical worldview. TorMod: Yes, we have a grand conspiracy going. But your comment begs the question: What was the big bang? Let us have your definition of it. A simple definition of the big bang is “the birth of our Universe”. The big bang is an event that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago – it is restricted to our Universe’s very earliest moments. TeleMad: So, I was – and still am - asking FreeThinker to supply the details of how the laws of physics would naturally produce the level of order associated with the simplest, original life. Note that the ability of the laws of physics to produce life spontaneously has never been demonstrated by science – it is a naturalistic assumption, whether right or wrong. TorMod: Where have you been in the past 51 years? Heard of the Stanley Miller experiment? Indeed I have. But your statement begs the question…do you know the difference between amino acids and life? Stanley Miller’s experiment produced the former, not the latter. Take a deep breath and re-read your post above. It would also help with an introduction - who are you? Let’s just say that I’m just someone who loves science and has read a lot of material on various of its fields over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 TeleMad, If you accept the theory that the big bang was the birth of our universe, how do you think the first supernovae and hypernovae came about? They were protostars which burned hydrogen into helium, and when they exploded heavier elements were created. Big Bang -> hydrogen and helium -> first stars -> first supernovae -> heavier elements. This means that - just as life would not have arisen without the big bang, all of the elements that we have today are made from the same material that was created with the big bang. For the interested: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest2.html">http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest2.html</a> I, like you, am well read and would suggest "The Magic Furnace" by Marcus Chown. It is an excellent book about how the elements have been cooked in the stars. Or: Where else do you think these came from? "do you know the difference between amino acids and life?" I know what amino acids are. They are considered to be the building blocks of life. Stanley Miller's experiment was a breakthrough in that it showed that it was possible to create them in the laboratory. After Miller, the understanding of organic compounds and the importance they have for the creation of living creatures has become big science. But - do you know what "life" is? You wrote that "the ability of the laws of physics to produce life spontaneously has never been demonstrated by science". The laws of physics have no such ability. They are merely formulations of our views of what are fundamental aspects of the universe. However, I am not sure anyone has tried to formulate any theory of "spontaneous production of life". It is generally believed (by non-creationists, mind) that life arose from prebiotic structures which had the ability to reproduce. The field of exobiology is one area in which the origins of life are studied. The Rosetta mission, which was launched by the European Space Agency earlier this year, is headed towards a comet which it will meet in 2014 to study, among other things, the organic compounds it contains. Here is an interesting interview with Stanley Miller about exobiology and the origins of life:<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html">http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html</a> Life has been around on this planet in one form or another for at least 3,5 billion years. That is one fourth of the time span since the big bang. I'd say that narrows the vast expanse of time between the big bang and the arrival of life. We have, however, no reason to assume that life has not evolved earlier elsewhere in the universe. Fred Adams speculates about this in his rather excellent book, "Origins of Existence: How Life Emerged in the Universe" (Free Press). Tormod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 TorMod: If you accept the theory that the big bang was the birth of our universe, how do you think the first supernovae and hypernovae came about? Just as you go on to describe: I haven’t suggested otherwise. Tormod: I, like you, am well read and would suggest "The Magic Furnace" by Marcus Chown. It is an excellent book about how the elements have been cooked in the stars. Or: Where else do you think these came from? Nowhere else…they were created by stellar nucleosynthesis and then spewed out into the universe as the stars "exploded", as I alluded to by mentioning supernovae and hypernovae. TeleMad: "…do you know the difference between amino acids and life?" TorMod: I know what amino acids are. They are considered to be the building blocks of life. No, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, not life. Miller’s experiment made some amino acids, no proteins. Furthermore, extant life requires other organic molecules – such as nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids - in addition to proteins. And as far as the very first life, most contemporary theories do not consider proteins to have been the first life form anyway. TorMod: But - do you know what "life" is? In the context of the origin of life, it is any self-sustaining molecule or system of molecules capable of replicating and evolving. TorMod: You wrote that "the ability of the laws of physics to produce life spontaneously has never been demonstrated by science". … However, I am not sure anyone has tried to formulate any theory of "spontaneous production of life". That’s what the study of the origin of life is all about. TorMod: It is generally believed (by non-creationists, mind) that life arose from prebiotic structures which had the ability to reproduce. Right, **generally believed**. But FreeThinker didn’t offer his original statement - about our existence being a natural occurence of the laws of physics - as a mere belief, but as a fact. However, scientific experimentation has not confirmed that belief yet – it’s still an assumption, whether it is correct or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Martin Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMad "Virtually nothing in our universe was created in the big bang." WRONG!! Everything in our universe, space/time, matter/energy was created in the big bang according to the current theory. It was not created in the form we now have.(Evolution) But it was created then. At t=1X10^-35 second all of the matter in the universe is assumed to have been Quark/Leptons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Martin Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMad" the big bang itself produced only hydrogen and helium (and a smattering of lithium)." WRONG! The big bang produced space/time and energy/matter. Matter in the form of subatomic particles. H, HE and Li are the first atoms to have formed, but that came much later. By much later I mean several minutes, so arbitrarily I suppose one could call that part of the big bang. I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.