Christianity Is The BEST Religion....

[GrandizerII]

Rudimentary life had to have come from nonlife.

According to who?

No violation of reality here.

Youre just treating life as some form of spirit instead of looking at it as a descriptor label for certain beings on this planet that can do stuff that suits the label.

If something is real, it is fact. Abiogenesis is not fact therefor it is not real.

There is no reasonable option but for abiogenesis to be a fact. You dont see it this way because youre looking at life the wrong way, as evident by your "life is energy" comment.

That scientists dont yet completely know yet how exactly abiogenesis occurred on this planet does not mean it is not a fact.

[vulcanlogician]

Remember that people used to think that God made the rain fall from the sky before someone figured out the water cycle. People in ancient times had no clue how water could just fall from the sky. So God seemed like a pretty good explanation. After all, God lives in the sky...

We don't understand abiogenesis either. We are puzzled by it, just like the ancients were puzzled by how water can fall from the sky. Let's not jump to conclusions here. Let's keep looking at the evidence until we genuinely figure it out.

[Huggy Bear]

That scientists dont yet completely know yet how exactly abiogenesis occurred on this planet does not mean it is not a fact.

That's exactly what it means buddy.

---

You can't even explain what the essence of life is.

If life is to put it simply, energy as stated in the Bible, then according to the law of thermodynamics, it had to have always existed since it cannot be created...

---

If life is just chemistry, why can't we just chemically keep someone alive indefinitely? My cell phone can be powered indefinitely through chemistry, the human body... not so much.

1. Life is NOT the same as energy.
2. Energy *can* be created and destroyed (by production or elimination of mass).

Life is a complex collection of interlinking chemical reactions that is self-sustaining in the right environment.

Living things tend to build up waste products and undergo degradation over time. Your cell phone would NOT be expected to work after 50 years, I assure you. The connections will deteriorate, the metals will rust, and the battery will become useless (that, much faster than the rest). Similar things happen in living things. It *is* chemistry, but if you need to have exactly the right chemicals in exactly the right places in a trillion cells, that becomes a technological problem we cannot yet address. When oxygen is cut off, many of those reactions stop and that produces what we call death.

*emphasis mine*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

In physics, the law of Conservation of Energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time.  In other words, this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

You were saying?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Rudimentary life had to have come from nonlife.

According to who?

No violation of reality here.

Youre just treating life as some form of spirit instead of looking at it as a descriptor label for certain beings on this planet that can do stuff that suits the label.

If something is real, it is fact. Abiogenesis is not fact therefor it is not real.

---

---

So do you really think that some 3,000 year-old guy is smarter than a modern 21st educated adult (other than maybe yourself)?  You seem to be living in the distant past instead of in the present.

Ok genius, can you explain how the great pyramid was built?

You do know that there's a much larger pyramid in Mexico, don't you?  

They were all built by human labor.  The Egyptian workers got paid.  The workers in Mexico might have been forced laborers.  

But neither the ancient Egyptian or Mexican pyramids builders could build a car or make soft toilet paper.

[polymath257]

That scientists dont yet completely know yet how exactly abiogenesis occurred on this planet does not mean it is not a fact.

That's exactly what it means buddy.

---

1. Life is NOT the same as energy.
2. Energy *can* be created and destroyed (by production or elimination of mass).

Life is a complex collection of interlinking chemical reactions that is self-sustaining in the right environment.

Living things tend to build up waste products and undergo degradation over time. Your cell phone would NOT be expected to work after 50 years, I assure you. The connections will deteriorate, the metals will rust, and the battery will become useless (that, much faster than the rest). Similar things happen in living things. It *is* chemistry, but if you need to have exactly the right chemicals in exactly the right places in a trillion cells, that becomes a technological problem we cannot yet address. When oxygen is cut off, many of those reactions stop and that produces what we call death.

*emphasis mine*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

In physics, the law of Conservation of Energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time.  In other words, this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

You were saying?

Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. Mass and energy are related, with the rest mass of an object having an equivalent energy which, when added to the other energy *is* conserved. But, as I said, energy can be converted to mass and vice versa.


From *your* article:
Matter is composed of such things as atoms, electrons, neutrons, and protons. It has intrinsic or rest mass. In the limited range of recognized experience of the nineteenth century it was found that such rest mass is conserved. Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity showed that it corresponds to an equivalent amount of rest energy. This means that it can be converted to or from equivalent amounts of other (non-material) forms of energy, for example kinetic energy, potential energy, and electromagnetic radiant energy. When this happens, as recognized in twentieth century experience, rest mass is not conserved, unlike the mass or total energy. All forms of energy contribute to the total mass and total energy.

Even this fails in general relativity. Again, from *your* article:
In general relativity, energy–momentum conservation is not well-defined except in certain special cases. Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics such as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.[23] The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.

Now, you did not address the central question: that life is NOT a type of energy. So it is not conserved. Life is a *process* of conversion of energy. Such processes can stop without violating conservation of energy. In essence, whatever energy is *associated* with life is dissipated as heat (a form of energy).

[GrandizerII]

That scientists dont yet completely know yet how exactly abiogenesis occurred on this planet does not mean it is not a fact.

That's exactly what it means buddy.

No it doesnt. We can know something to be a fact even if we dont know all the details pertinent to it. There is nothing extraordinary about what Im saying here anyway. Its only extraordinary if life is some magical entity that ia supposed to have been formed magically out if nothing.

[Huggy Bear]

That's exactly what it means buddy.

---

*emphasis mine*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

You were saying?

Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. Mass and energy are related, with the rest mass of an object having an equivalent energy which, when added to the other energy *is* conserved. But, as I said, energy can be converted to mass and vice versa.


From *your* article:
Matter is composed of such things as atoms, electrons, neutrons, and protons. It has intrinsic or rest mass. In the limited range of recognized experience of the nineteenth century it was found that such rest mass is conserved. Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity showed that it corresponds to an equivalent amount of rest energy. This means that it can be converted to or from equivalent amounts of other (non-material) forms of energy, for example kinetic energy, potential energy, and electromagnetic radiant energy. When this happens, as recognized in twentieth century experience, rest mass is not conserved, unlike the mass or total energy. All forms of energy contribute to the total mass and total energy.

Even this fails in general relativity. Again, from *your* article:
In general relativity, energy–momentum conservation is not well-defined except in certain special cases. Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics such as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.[23] The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.

Now, you did not address the central question: that life is NOT a type of energy. So it is not conserved. Life is a *process* of conversion of energy. Such processes can stop without violating conservation of energy. In essence, whatever energy is *associated* with life is dissipated as heat (a form of energy).

*Emphasis mine*

I simply stated that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" which you clearly did not agree with, since you stated that it could be destroyed...

Transformation does not equate to destruction.

[Whateverist]

Rudimentary life had to have come from nonlife.

[b]
According to who?

But Huggs, isn't that what you believe too? Unless you think God is a kind of life, i.e., biologically based being.

[Huggy Bear]

That's exactly what it means buddy.

No it doesnt. We can know something to be a fact even if we dont know all the details pertinent to it. There is nothing extraordinary about what Im saying here anyway. Its only extraordinary if life is some magical entity that ia supposed to have been formed magically out if nothing.

*Emphasis mine*

That's the definition of faith... not reality.

[Whateverist]

..faith... not reality.

A point of agreement.