Well, no one argues that the donkey's cells are alive. You compared a proteinish thing to a highly complex organism. There is no way to reasonable compare the two. Macro life and Micro life (I just made up those terms) are very different.
Mules and zonkeys don't reproduce therefore they are not alive? No, reproduction is not a requirement for life.
But seriously, Christian theology does support the idea that angels can reproduce if they so choose. However, they are apparently not supposed to. Well, yah, but that's not the point. The cells being alive really only account for growth and metabolism, which is why, in my scientific opinion, growth and metabolism are the real requirements for something to be alive. Prions are not alive by that definiton, neither are viruses. But that's just my stance. A common one in the field of science, but there is also a lot of people who disagree. Reproduction and proliferation don't really define life because of the exceptions.
Nope, I proposing that metabolism and growth are the only requirements for life. Anything composed of living cells is alive imo, but reproduction is not a requirement for life.
I believe God created all life (there is way too much order, complexity, intelligence, coincidence, and circumstantial evidence to believe otherwise).
Biogenesis is not a theory. Biogenesis is the term that postulates that life only arises from life. Do you mean that you side with abiogenesis (i.e. the generation of life from non-living matter)?
God created the first, fully developed organisms of each species. Those organisms produced other organisms in specie.
I'm going by the secondary meaning of biogenesis stated by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, which is what the current definition of the theory abiogenesis is originally based off of. I'll be posting my response as soon as I have a lapse in classes. I will give a hint as to what part of it will be about until then : the spontaneous generation of protobionts
__________________
You don't need good rear vision because you're always in front!
Last edited by AngryManatee on Apr 8th, 2007 at 06:49 AM
All this being said, is it possible that a concept of biogenesis, could be representative of a God figure and what it used to create life - at least when describing it and any creation account from a physical/natural perspective, or do you think that it or any related natural processes are conducive to creating advanced life unto themselves - without some form of higher intelligence guiding them?
In addition to all of these questions asked, please let me know if you believe science should exclude "metaphysical" concepts(i.e. spirit, soul) in their search for answers regarding life's emergence.
The floor is yours. I'll be eagerly anticipating your responses.
Yes it is. Mules and whatever the hell zonkeys are were made through reproduction IE born. Therefore they are alive. I do agree that growth is also afunction for life, but then again, single cell organisms don't necessary grow do they?
I don't believe God created life. I believe life came about through chemical reactions within the planet said life is on. Life = Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Hydrogen (in it's basic form). This is why we need carbohydrates, oxygen, water and proteins. This is why plants need carbondioxide, water and minerals. We need those elements to keep alive because it's what we're made of.
Nitrogen Oxygen and Hydrogen are in the air. Carbon is in the Earth and other gasses. You don't need to be a scientist to know that it can create life.
I think he meant whatever we are after death. Judging by his posts, Lord xyz is a pretty strong atheist.
As do most who believe in a God figure. I don't see how what you described is mutually exclusive to the existence of such a figure. That being said, this argument is not truly about what elements basic "life" is composed of, or how these elements combine to form such life - rather, it's about whether or not one believes that such a process was designed and guided by intelligence and order, or if it is the result of accidental circumstances, randomness and disorder. That being stated, which of the former philosophies that I mentioned do you subcribe to?
I've asked Angry Manatee this multiple times in other threads - but he always ends up giving me an answer that's similar to the one you've given(i.e what life is composed of, chemical reactions make life, etc) which doesn't really answer this pertinent philosophical question.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 30th, 2007 02:36 PM
