Creation vs Biogenesis

Originally posted by Nellinator
I 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.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Angels and spirits etc. don't reproduce either. Therefore, there is no life after death.

Angels and spirits don't exist. 🙄

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yep, and I know you can see the connection. Interesting how the definition of life needs to be worked on a bit to cover discrepancies like that.

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.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Angels and spirits etc. don't reproduce either. Therefore, there is no life after death.

But seriously, Christian theology does support the idea that angels can reproduce if they so choose. However, they are apparently not supposed to.

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

What you've really done is propose the question if something composed of living things is alive.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
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.

What say you AngryManatee?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
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.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What say you AngryManatee?

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

Originally posted by AngryManatee
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

I'd also like you to respond to this Manatee --

Originally posted by Thundar
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.

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.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Mules and zonkeys don't reproduce therefore they are not alive? No, reproduction is not a requirement for life.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I believe God created all life (there is way too much order, complexity, intelligence, coincidence, and circumstantial evidence to believe otherwise).

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Angels and spirits don't exist. 🙄

Originally posted by parenthesis
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.

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.