Christianity Is The BEST Religion....

[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).