Creation vs Biogenesis
This is not a debate about Creationism and Evolution. This deals with the initial emergence of life.
Do you think that life was created by a god figure, or do you think that life emerged from the combination of inorganic substances?
I'll start off by saying that I side with the biogenesis theory. If anyone knows of some other life emergence theories, please post them.
And I will elaborate in my decision later after classes are over.
At the subatomic level, what is the difference between life and non-life?
I don't believe there is any. Life is a by-product of biological processes. To say that life began is to say that life exists independent of biological processes. The simple answer is that life will naturally appear, if the conditions are correct.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
IMO noIt can't even reproduce. Viruses are parasitic but prions (like mad cow) can only disrupt normal protiens in order to multiply.
I agree. I'm just bringing up the point of ambiguousness between life and non-life to all those Christians who are not here right now. 😂
Creation vs Biogenesis
Our universe appears very biofriendly. Given life's tenacity, with our known laws of nature, its appearance was likely inevitable. Indeed, current fossil records point to life appearing on Earth almost 4 billion years ago, when the planet was less than a billion years old.
As our abilities to understand and detect life improve, especially as we move out into space, we may well find our cosmos to be solidly biocentric.
Given an infinite number of universes (eg, 'many-worlds' approach), sooner or later a biocentric universe was bound to happen.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI once had to write a paper on whether prions were alive or not. I got an A+ (the only paper I ever got that on) saying that they were not because cellular PrP (PrP=prion protein) does not reproduce, and the proliferation of scrapie PrP is limited to the amount of cellular PrP that there is. Also, PrP has no DNA, no metabolic processes, no growth, and really no signs that would identify as life. The reproduction argument can be considered weak though because mules cannot reproduce either, yet they are unquestionably alive.
Also, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. It's not alive, or is it?
Re: Creation vs Biogenesis
Originally posted by AngryManatee
This is not a debate about Creationism and Evolution. This deals with the initial emergence of life.Do you think that life was created by a god figure, or do you think that life emerged from the combination of inorganic substances?
I'll start off by saying that I side with the biogenesis theory. If anyone knows of some other life emergence theories, please post them.
And I will elaborate in my decision later after classes are over.
The question really depends on how we define "God." If we define it on a purely physical level, then both scenarios you've provided allude to life being created by a "God" of sorts.
I don't believe that the true nature of the universe or "God" can be strictly defined at a natural or observable level. Nor can it be completely defined by the metaphysical, supernatural, or the spiritual. Both theories you've presented rely primarily on metaphysical and/or supernatural concepts - and really shouldn't be considered scientific, at least when the word scientific is used to solely describe any theory that is testable, observable, and replicatable within the natural world.
All this being stated, I am more inclined to believe that the more logical non-scientific theory you've presented is the one involving a "god figure" or creator. My opinion is not solely based on my religious beliefs, but it is also based on what I've observed in the world around me, one which is filled with order and intelligent designs created by the beings who inhabit it.
Just my two cents...