Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

SpontaneousGeneration: DarwinsWrong

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 11:26:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1st Video: [1:20 - End]

Info on spontaneous generation.

Spontaneous Generation: development of organisms from non-living matter
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 11:36:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This has some significant implications. This is evidence of an intelligent Universe, evidence of extraterrestrial life, and actually leads credence to the theory of evolution.

When I say Darwin was wrong, I'm only saying he is partly wrong. Life doesn't ONLY arise through slow processes of evolution, but can also arise instantly in cases such as spontaneous generation.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2010 11:47:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 11:39:57 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Everything can't come from nothing. ;)

Meh, ignore this post. I just needed to post something so I could update my sig.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 12:17:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 12:10:00 AM, Puck wrote:
Erm, spontaneous generation is a long debunked biological term about the origins of life arriving from inanimate decaying matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

No, if you watch the video, he explained how there was a conspiracy trying to suppress the evidence because they didn't want to abandon Darwin's theory. They through the sterilized viles away that contained spontaneously developed life.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 12:20:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yeahhhh. Stopped watching after about 2:20 when all he had to say were arguments from ignorance and non sequiturs.

Want to link research papers I'll read them. Otherwise just another quack idea, in this case promoting a 'life force' that 'acts in ways we don't understand' simply because extremophiles exist. Um no.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 12:21:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 12:17:39 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/9/2010 12:10:00 AM, Puck wrote:
Erm, spontaneous generation is a long debunked biological term about the origins of life arriving from inanimate decaying matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

No, if you watch the video, he explained how there was a conspiracy trying to suppress the evidence because they didn't want to abandon Darwin's theory. They through the sterilized viles away that contained spontaneously developed life.

Right... threw? vials? Evidence?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 12:26:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 12:20:03 AM, Puck wrote:
Yeahhhh. Stopped watching after about 2:20 when all he had to say were arguments from ignorance and non-sequiturs

Not true. He began with an argument asking questions (which people identify as "argument from ignornance"), but then he actually had answers to the question as to WHAT and WHY these things occurred. He did not use an argument from ignorance. And I also saw no non-sequiturs.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 12:29:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 12:26:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Not true. He began with an argument asking questions (which people identify as "argument from ignornance"), but then he actually had answers to the question as to WHAT and WHY these things occurred.

An idea or proof? The two are vastly different, and you are his advocate. So, again, evidence please.

He did not use an argument from ignorance.

Yes he did. In effect 'I can't comprehend how these evolved ...'

And I also saw no non-sequiturs.

'I can't comprehend how these evolved ...' '... therefore some life force thing dunnit and they just appeared'.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 12:50:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 12:29:38 AM, Puck wrote:
At 3/9/2010 12:26:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Not true. He began with an argument asking questions (which people identify as "argument from ignornance"), but then he actually had answers to the question as to WHAT and WHY these things occurred.

An idea or proof? The two are vastly different, and you are his advocate. So, again, evidence please.

Watch the video at part 6:44.

Here's the book mentioned as well:

http://books.google.com...

And I also saw no non-sequiturs.

'I can't comprehend how these evolved ...' '... therefore some life force thing dunnit and they just appeared'.

That's not the point he was making. He was demonstrating that spontaneous generation has occurred in experiments. Whether he believes a "life force" did it or not is irrelevant. That's just what he called the phenomenon, but it was not what he was trying to prove.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 1:03:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 12:50:10 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Watch the video at part 6:44.

Pasteur? The Louis Pasteur who famously debunked spontaneous generation with his work on bacteria?

Again, evidence please. 'Pasteur found' is not evidence, heck he doesn't even link evidence in his slides, it's just a unsupported statement.

Here's the book mentioned as well:

http://books.google.com...

Yes ... people argued for spontaneous generation. That's not proof, no more that geocentric models were.

And I also saw no non-sequiturs.

'I can't comprehend how these evolved ...' '... therefore some life force thing dunnit and they just appeared'.

That's not the point he was making. He was demonstrating that spontaneous generation has occurred in experiments.

No he didn't, he said it occurred, without *any* evidence, from a person who very much did not support spontaneous generation nor did experiments that were designed to create life from non matter, but development of germ theory.

Whether he believes a "life force" did it or not is irrelevant. That's just what he called the phenomenon, but it was not what he was trying to prove.

Sure he is, by vocally and explicitly advocating it as a support premise. People try to sneak in premises all the time and he is no different.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 2:37:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
*slams head on desk, then knee, then floor, then whatever else one can find nearby*

Seriously Geo? Seriously? I don't mind an alternative theory, but to advocate one on such a feeble foundation as evidence is intellectually undignified. If you're going to argue for a minority position in science then I would demand a conclusive (or rather nearly conclusive) test -- not only that, but I'd love to see the evidence for a scientific conspiracy. Last time I checked, you don't get an accompanying mail with your Ph.D. about "oh by the way bull$hit everything you know about Darwin to the public so we can hide the truth that is supposedly so obvious".
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 7:34:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/8/2010 11:36:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This has some significant implications. This is evidence of an intelligent Universe, evidence of extraterrestrial life, and actually leads credence to the theory of evolution.

When I say Darwin was wrong, I'm only saying he is partly wrong. Life doesn't ONLY arise through slow processes of evolution, but can also arise instantly in cases such as spontaneous generation.

no. it can't. that guy has no idea what he's talking about.

1. through spectrographic analysis we have found that so called "organic" molecules are common in space. it doesn't follow that they are produced by living organisms. experiments *on earth* have shown that they form readily in many conditions. in fact, we can actually tell that they are *not* the product of living creatures- know how? most organic molecules have a "handedness"- that is they can be "left handed" or "right handed"; it's called chirality. biological systems on earth preferentially use left-handed amino acids- all of them. even the ones found in nuclear reactors (and btw it was a fungus they found in the chernobyl reactor, not a bacteria). organic molecules found in space, or on earth if they formed spontaneously, tend to be about 50-50 as far as handedness is concerned. since all known biological systems actually prefer a certain chirality, the 50-50 ratio is evidence against biological activity hvaing contributed to their formation.

2. i find it absurdly amusing that this guy would dare call evolution crazy because "its like an encyclopedia falling out of the sky one word at a time" when he is advocating that the entire book appear in its complete form out of thin air...

3. "spontaneous generation" of organic molecules =/= spontaneous generation of life. the molecules are much less complex than their ultimate organization into biological systems.

please just... stop while you're ahead....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 11:48:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh jesus..

Watching this video reminds me of watching one of Kent Hovinds videos.

First of all, no. Nuclear reactors are not sealed, all the time. Thats right. We have to devise a method to, uh, PLACE FISSILE MATERIAL INSIDE THE NUCLEAR REACTORS.

Secondly, no such thing as proof in science. Please learn the lingo, you are looking like Kent Hovind.

Thirdly, no. our knowledge of DNA has increased ten fold in the past 20 years alone. Seriously, this is the same argument made by creationists. This guy is a whack. Considering Crick made these statements in the 1960s when he was initially interested in directed panspermia, this argument fails miserably.

Fourthly, my light bulb looks exactly the same as the heat and light singature of a star. Does this mean i have a star in my living room? Fail.

Fifth, yes, they do. And maybe this energetic high has something to do with.. Oh, i dunno, no gravity? as we all know, standing on our heads produces diziness. The reason being, we utilize gravity to a certain extent to help with circulation. I find it very unamazing that in an environment where no gravity is present, people can feel a tad bit "dizzy" so to speak. Fail argument is fail.

Sixthly, again, fail. The reason for larger plants is the same reason why, hanging tomato plants upside down produce larger, longer plants. Gravity is a main factor in the size of plants, and it has been shown, yes, PROVEN so to speak, that if, for example, you hang a plant upside down and reverse the gravitational forces, the plants grow many times their size. Anti-gravity situations are similar, in that there is no restriction that prevents these plants from incresaing in size.

As for the huge pumpkin, ive seen ones that big at the carnival fair. But congrats on presenting none of the articles required to determine what nutrients were given, cause i hate to tell you this but we can grow such large plants here on earth too.

Seventh, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, and never had an instance where spontaneous generation occured. ROFL ROFL ROFL CONSPIRACY THEORIES! Yeah, thats right, cause its IMPOSSIBLE for scientists to replicate Pasteurs expeirments! Fail. And laughably so.

But kudos to this guy. Thanks for the laugh. yes, everything is a conspiracy. All the scientists are scheming against him. The government is sending blackhawk helicopters and delta force death squads to him. Your mother is poisoning your pasteurized milk! Thanks, but no.

All his arguments fail. They are on par with Creationism. Infact, i wouldnt be surprised if this guy has his name appear on the Creation Science institutes website as a "Reference."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 11:58:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 12:50:10 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That's not the point he was making. He was demonstrating that spontaneous generation has occurred in experiments. Whether he believes a "life force" did it or not is irrelevant. That's just what he called the phenomenon, but it was not what he was trying to prove.

Somehow i expected better from you GeoLarueate8.

Check the video again. This guy claims that Pasteur and other scientists deliberately tried to hush hush the data regarding spontaneous generation as a grander scheme of scientific conspiracy. The test he cites, from Dr Pacheco, also fails, as it is not even a scientific article. He didnt publish any of his findings in an actual journal, and instead you can only find a refference to him at Orgone.com. is that the same Orgone as the one proposed by Wilhelm Reich, who claimed that touching people, healed them, and therefore had his patients get naked with him and gave them orgasms which he named "Orgasmotherapy"? Fail.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 8:09:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 2:37:05 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
*slams head on desk, then knee, then floor, then whatever else one can find nearby*

Seriously Geo? Seriously? I don't mind an alternative theory, but to advocate one on such a feeble foundation as evidence is intellectually undignified. If you're going to argue for a minority position in science then I would demand a conclusive (or rather nearly conclusive) test -- not only that, but I'd love to see the evidence for a scientific conspiracy. Last time I checked, you don't get an accompanying mail with your Ph.D. about "oh by the way bull$hit everything you know about Darwin to the public so we can hide the truth that is supposedly so obvious".

I spit my beer on the monitor, thanks skeptic. I said the same thing after watching the video. Seriously? I mean, seriously? Geo, you are a smart person; please do not fall for this one. Please.

P.S. skeptic, the monitor if fine, but you owe me a beer.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 9:34:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ok, so everyone rejects spontaneous generation (living organisms from non-living matter), but doesn't Darwinian evolution require that this at least happened once? Before life arose, some sort of spontaneous generation had to have occurred to spark the process of evolution, correct?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 10:17:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 9:34:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ok, so everyone rejects spontaneous generation (living organisms from non-living matter), but doesn't Darwinian evolution require that this at least happened once? Before life arose, some sort of spontaneous generation had to have occurred to spark the process of evolution, correct?

No. It is entirely unrelated to evolution which deals with life when it occurs. The origins of life are a separate matter entirely. To be clear on the distinction between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation too, spontaneous generation posits organisms will simply occur *as whole* from non living matter, which is completely different from say the RNA model where organic chemicals in a process arrive at basic RNA.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 10:22:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 9:34:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ok, so everyone rejects spontaneous generation (living organisms from non-living matter), but doesn't Darwinian evolution require that this at least happened once? Before life arose, some sort of spontaneous generation had to have occurred to spark the process of evolution, correct?

No, evolution does not require anything about the origin of life, Geo. God himself could have placed LUCA and everything we know about the theory of evolution would be fine. Spontaneous generation deals with lifeforms like worms, maggots, and mice arising from decaying or non living matter; it has nothing to do with the origin of life. The process of abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Creationists talk like this, Geo. You are better than this.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 10:23:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 9:34:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ok, so everyone rejects spontaneous generation (living organisms from non-living matter), but doesn't Darwinian evolution require that this at least happened once? Before life arose, some sort of spontaneous generation had to have occurred to spark the process of evolution, correct?

yep- thats another thing. all living creatures use the same DNA base pairs, the same molecule to transport energy, and the same amino acids. there is absolutely no evidence that other molecules are somehow defective or lacking- its the result of chance, and the fact that we all evolved from the same original thing. because abiogenesis is rare. there are theories about it, but they are basically guesswork since its a historical event that left only very obscure evidence (in the form of now living creatures) if spontaneous generation were truly common there would be no reason to think that every time it occurred the same amino acids, energy transport molecules, and base pairs would be used in the same ways.

it took almost a billion years for abiogenesis to occur on earth after its formation. and that was with various chemical gradients free to build up naturally, undisturbed by anything but physical processes (living organisms need gradients of some kind to live). after life comes along, all the organic molecules and available energy sources are used- the chances of another abiogenesis shrink to almost nothing.

i mean think about it- the fact that a planet the size of mars probably collided with us at some point in our history and created the moon does not support the assertion that such collisions happen often if only we would look more carefully at the evidence...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 10:47:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 10:22:05 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
At 3/9/2010 9:34:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ok, so everyone rejects spontaneous generation (living organisms from non-living matter), but doesn't Darwinian evolution require that this at least happened once? Before life arose, some sort of spontaneous generation had to have occurred to spark the process of evolution, correct?

No, evolution does not require anything about the origin of life, Geo. God himself could have placed LUCA and everything we know about the theory of evolution would be fine.

Uh, wha..?

Spontaneous generation deals with lifeforms like worms, maggots, and mice arising from decaying or non living matter;

That was how one version of the theory developed and obviously it was debunked. Some guy left some old food out and he saw maggots on it and concluded that it produced life. Obviously the maggots came from somewhere else and migrated to that area.

it has nothing to do with the origin of life.

My mistake. I realize that abiogenesis is a separate matter from evolution, however they are directly linked.

The process of abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis: the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Spontaneous Generation: is an obsolete (cause of the conspiracy of suppression) theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter. - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia said that spontaneous generation was the first theory of abiogenesis.

Creationists talk like this, Geo. You are better than this.

Uh, I'm arguing against that. You're the one who said that it's possible God put LUCA here.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 10:56:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 10:17:19 PM, Puck wrote:
No. It is entirely unrelated to evolution which deals with life when it occurs. The origins of life are a separate matter entirely. To be clear on the distinction between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation too, spontaneous generation posits organisms will simply occur *as whole* from non living matter, which is completely different from say the RNA model where organic chemicals in a process arrive at basic RNA.

So do you mean that abiogenesis posits non-living matter to single-celled organism as opposed to spontaneous generation that posits non-living matter to multi-celled organism?

Because it really seems like the time, place, and speed of the process that is causing disagreement.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 11:03:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 10:56:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/9/2010 10:17:19 PM, Puck wrote:
No. It is entirely unrelated to evolution which deals with life when it occurs. The origins of life are a separate matter entirely. To be clear on the distinction between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation too, spontaneous generation posits organisms will simply occur *as whole* from non living matter, which is completely different from say the RNA model where organic chemicals in a process arrive at basic RNA.

So do you mean that abiogenesis posits non-living matter to single-celled organism as opposed to spontaneous generation that posits non-living matter to multi-celled organism?

Because it really seems like the time, place, and speed of the process that is causing disagreement.

the issue is not that "spontaneous generation" is impossible in the sense of life arising from non-life. the issue is that all the evidence for such an event occurring referenced in the video are spurious.

to further cloud the issue: are viruses alive? what about bits of self replicating molecules without even a protein sheath? its extremely difficult to even draw the line between living and non-living even though away from the boundary between them, the categories are clear.

fact: organic molecules do not move from the state of clearly being not alive directly to the state of clearly being part of a living organism. your video implies that that is the case, and that is laughable/the source of all objections.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 11:28:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 10:56:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Because it really seems like the time, place, and speed of the process that is causing disagreement.

Not really because the it posits <miss all the necessary steps we know of> parts to arrive at an end product as par course of spontaneous generation. The issue is not it's abiogenesis or evolution just a bit further down the track, it's that it wants to assert the arrival ex materia of fully formed organisms minus all the necessary stages to get there. And depending on his life force argument, maybe even ex nihilo. :/
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2010 11:31:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 10:47:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/9/2010 10:22:05 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
At 3/9/2010 9:34:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ok, so everyone rejects spontaneous generation (living organisms from non-living matter), but doesn't Darwinian evolution require that this at least happened once? Before life arose, some sort of spontaneous generation had to have occurred to spark the process of evolution, correct?

No, evolution does not require anything about the origin of life, Geo. God himself could have placed LUCA and everything we know about the theory of evolution would be fine.

Uh, wha..?

Spontaneous generation deals with lifeforms like worms, maggots, and mice arising from decaying or non living matter;

That was how one version of the theory developed and obviously it was debunked. Some guy left some old food out and he saw maggots on it and concluded that it produced life. Obviously the maggots came from somewhere else and migrated to that area.

it has nothing to do with the origin of life.

My mistake. I realize that abiogenesis is a separate matter from evolution, however they are directly linked.

The process of abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis: the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Spontaneous Generation: is an obsolete (cause of the conspiracy of suppression) theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter. - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia said that spontaneous generation was the first theory of abiogenesis.

An idea of abiogenesis, not the term we use now (i.e. it was explicitly about only certain types of animals such as maggots and not an origin of all life idea).
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2010 8:35:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 10:47:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
My mistake. I realize that abiogenesis is a separate matter from evolution, however they are directly linked.
Directly linked.... as in that they are both apart of science?

Wikipedia said that spontaneous generation was the first theory of abiogenesis.

In a way, it is, but spontaneous generation has already been debunked. Here is the difference between the two today.

Abiogenesis: Organic matter undergoing chemical reactions in a specific environment to produce the building blocks of life, which also underwent specific situations in order to produce the first, simple single celled organism.

Spontaneous generation: Complex cells suddenly appearing out of any sort of matter, organic or not, under any sort of condition.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2010 8:38:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/9/2010 10:56:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Because it really seems like the time, place, and speed of the process that is causing disagreement.

Yes, it is. If you ONLY consider the start, and the end, That is , "Non life" to "life", then yes, the disagreement is the time, place, speed and process. But this alone is enough to separate the two.

Think about this. Consider these two situations. A human being comes along and assembles a computer, and a computer being assembled by itself, magically. In both cases, the Start and End results are the same. But its the process that separates the two, and therefore, both situations are entirely different.