Creationism and 6000 year old dinosaurs.

[Mattshark]

Why does the best evidence point to inorganic material becoming organic growth?

The fact that organic material can form naturally.

[ravergirl]

The fact that organic material can form naturally.

organic material can form naturally now, but could it always? when everything is inorganic, what is said that happened to become organic?

[Mattshark]

organic material can form naturally now, but could it always? when everything is inorganic, what is said that happened to become organic?

Yes.

Chemical reactions.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Mattshark

[ravergirl]

Yes.

Chemical reactions.

and organic atoms form cells?

[Doug1029]

no it wouldn't be a good scientific experiment. science needs 'repeat' and thats just not the way things like that work.

My work is more observational than experimental. We have had a set of monitoring plots et up in Arkansas pine forests since 1985. They are remeasured every five years to tell us what the forest is doing. In 2000 there was a humongous ice storm that smashed a bunch of our plots/trees. Since then, I have been collecting data and analyzing it to see how the trees responded. No experiments involved.

Astronomers don't run experiments either. They just observe.

That is how I would go about looking at your situation, as a once-only event. But again, I don't have the expertise.

Doug

[The One Who Is]

and organic atoms form cells?

Yeeeees...

EDIT: And, I'm assuming you actually meant to say "molecules" here.

Edited November 12, 2008 by The One Who Is

[Doug1029]

Methinks that your "safe assumption" is simply that -- an assumption without proof.

Not that I have a problem with your assumption, by the way. Each to their own faith, my friend; your faith that God does not exist is as valid as mine ... neither belief can be proved by using your preferred method, namely science.

Kind regards,

Karlis

Actually, I'm an agnostic. Philosophically, I don't have an opinion on the subject.

"Proof" is a mathematical concept. Proof in the deductive sense does not exist in science. At best, "scientific" proof is probabilistic; there is always the tiniest possibility of error. I don't think the idea of "proof" will serve us well in this discussion; it will only further confuse an already-confused issue.

I am not finding fault with your belief in God. Just pointing out that you do so without any supporting evidence. Nothing wrong with that: lots of scientists believe in God. It is perfectly acceptable to have beliefs not supported by evidence. But when evidence finally shows up, we must be ready to change those beliefs. That's where the YECs fall down: they try to hang onto a belief when all the evidence is running against it.

We all need a little humility here. NONE of us know even whether there is a God, let alone, anything else about God. In that case, your ideas are as valid as mine, but so too, mine are as valid as yours.

We have come to the end of knowledge and that end is a few steps short of the divine.

Doug

[ravergirl]

Yeeeees...

EDIT: And, I'm assuming you actually meant to say "molecules" here.

so the jump from inorganic material to cellular takes how long?

[The One Who Is]

so the jump from inorganic material to cellular takes how long?

Based on what? Like, how long from the Big Bang to the first cell, or how long from the start of the formation of the first cell to the end of the formation of the first cell, or what?

I confess to not having anything resembling an exact answer, I'm still curious though.

[ravergirl]

Based on what? Like, how long from the Big Bang to the first cell, or how long from the start of the formation of the first cell to the end of the formation of the first cell, or what?

I confess to not having anything resembling an exact answer, I'm still curious though.

well yes

big bang to first cell....

and then currently inorganic to first cell.

[Doug1029]

so the jump from inorganic material to cellular takes how long?

When I took organic chemistry, "organic" was defined as "carbon-based:" if it has carbon, it's organic.

They made an exception for the carbonates because they have ionic bonds. So, as the class proceeded, we gradually dropped the "contains carbon" definition to "contains carbon and has co-valent bonds." As carbon-containing molecules with co-valent bonds are found free-floating in space, it's fair to say that neither definition is a definition of life.

Is a virus alive? It is not cellular. It can be rendered totally inactive by extreme heat, cold or dehydration. It can be crystalized like a grain of salt, then raised from the dead to infect a living cell. It can reproduce itself, but only by hijacking a living cell's biochemical mechanisms. Evolution acts on it to produce viruses better-suited to their hosts; e.g. HIV/AIDS. A virus is somewhere between living and dead. A real-life zomby.

I think that the evolution of life proceeded on a continuum. At one end, all is dead; at the other end, things are indisputably alive. But in the middle, it is gray; things are not clearly alive or dead. A chemical "stew" in a pore in the rock carries out all living processes, but lacks its own wall to enclose it: it is not cellular, yet it lives. A bubble has a cell wall, but cannot reproduce, grow or feed itself. A blood cell cannot reproduce: is it alive?

The real world does not break down into nice neat categories of "inorganic" vs. "cellular." The change you're talking about could take a billion years, or a few seconds: it's all a matter of definitions and where you draw the line.

Many of the discussions I see on UM assume a simplified view of the universe, of living things. Real life is complicated.

Doug

P.S.: "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine."

[AlexG]

When I took organic chemistry, "organic" was defined as "carbon-based:" if it has carbon, it's organic.

They made an exception for the carbonates because they have ionic bonds. So, as the class proceeded, we gradually dropped the "contains carbon" definition to "contains carbon and has co-valent bonds." As carbon-containing molecules with co-valent bonds are found free-floating in space, it's fair to say that neither definition is a definition of life.

Is a virus alive? It is not cellular. It can be rendered totally inactive by extreme heat, cold or dehydration. It can be crystalized like a grain of salt, then raised from the dead to infect a living cell. It can reproduce itself, but only by hijacking a living cell's biochemical mechanisms. Evolution acts on it to produce viruses better-suited to their hosts; e.g. HIV/AIDS. A virus is somewhere between living and dead. A real-life zomby.

I think that the evolution of life proceeded on a continuum. At one end, all is dead; at the other end, things are indisputably alive. But in the middle, it is gray; things are not clearly alive or dead. A chemical "stew" in a pore in the rock carries out all living processes, but lacks its own wall to enclose it: it is not cellular, yet it lives. A bubble has a cell wall, but cannot reproduce, grow or feed itself. A blood cell cannot reproduce: is it alive?

The real world does not break down into nice neat categories of "inorganic" vs. "cellular." The change you're talking about could take a billion years, or a few seconds: it's all a matter of definitions and where you draw the line.

Many of the discussions I see on UM assume a simplified view of the universe, of living things. Real life is complicated.

Doug

P.S.: "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine."

Biology is too damned complicated. I'll stick with simple things like physics.

[ravergirl]

When I took organic chemistry, "organic" was defined as "carbon-based:" if it has carbon, it's organic.

They made an exception for the carbonates because they have ionic bonds. So, as the class proceeded, we gradually dropped the "contains carbon" definition to "contains carbon and has co-valent bonds." As carbon-containing molecules with co-valent bonds are found free-floating in space, it's fair to say that neither definition is a definition of life.

Is a virus alive? It is not cellular. It can be rendered totally inactive by extreme heat, cold or dehydration. It can be crystalized like a grain of salt, then raised from the dead to infect a living cell. It can reproduce itself, but only by hijacking a living cell's biochemical mechanisms. Evolution acts on it to produce viruses better-suited to their hosts; e.g. HIV/AIDS. A virus is somewhere between living and dead. A real-life zomby.

I think that the evolution of life proceeded on a continuum. At one end, all is dead; at the other end, things are indisputably alive. But in the middle, it is gray; things are not clearly alive or dead. A chemical "stew" in a pore in the rock carries out all living processes, but lacks its own wall to enclose it: it is not cellular, yet it lives. A bubble has a cell wall, but cannot reproduce, grow or feed itself. A blood cell cannot reproduce: is it alive?

The real world does not break down into nice neat categories of "inorganic" vs. "cellular." The change you're talking about could take a billion years, or a few seconds: it's all a matter of definitions and where you draw the line.

Many of the discussions I see on UM assume a simplified view of the universe, of living things. Real life is complicated.

Doug

P.S.: "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine."

Nicely put. I know it is more complicated than could ever be explained here. but im trying to fill in gaps.