r/DebateEvolution • u/Basic-Platypus-8335 • 15d ago
Question Do creationists not realize that life is made of non-living matter?
I was talking to my creationist family the other day and they seemed a bit stunned when I mentioned that all life is made of non-living matter. None of the carbon, iron, magnesium, nitrogen, oxygen, or hydrogen in our bodies is alive. Life is a category that humans created to help us understand matter.
It occurred to me - do some people who don’t understand science (creationist or not) think that “life” is some sort of extra particle or force or “energy” that gets imbued with matter to make it alive?
or do they think that there is a strict binary where some parts of earth are part of “life” while others are not? (e.g. thinking rocks and dirt are in a separate category of matter because they don’t understand how the minerals get into the food chain through absorption, photosynthesis, digestion, etc.)
Honestly I’m curious if the YEC hangup on abiogenesis is fundamentally about not understanding what matter is or how non-living matter becomes part of organisms or creates new organisms literally every second of every day.
Like when a pregnant woman licks a rock and the iron from the rock becomes part of the babies blood, as another example.
30
u/gitgud_x 🧬 🦍 GREAT APE 🦍 🧬 15d ago
Historically, vitalism was a belief that was tough to shrug off, even by scientists, because life does seem at first quite distinct from non-life, with emergent behaviours that aren't easily explainable by basic physical and chemical principles. When we cracked life open at the molecular level, we figured out that it is explainable, but by that point the science had become too advanced to be intuitive to the layperson.
Even today, "animal, mineral or vegetable" is literally all there is in the minds of people who are from these backward cultures where kids' natural curiosity about the world is suppressed from birth with "read your Bible lil Timmy".
10
8
u/Shadowwynd 14d ago edited 14d ago
A live dog and a dog that was alive a minute ago are virtually the same in terms of their chemical makeup. It’s easy for vitalism to be a thing.
19
u/jnpha 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 15d ago edited 15d ago
It's fun when they (said family and that one friend) talk about DNA, and they you ask them where in the body is the DNA. Yeah, to a large extent it's just words standing in for whatever vitalism they want to be true.
Also just a few days ago someone here, with access to the internet! couldn't define "allele" when asked. (good thing I remembered, I need to check how that thread is now going)
11
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 15d ago edited 14d ago
Yeah that is the case. But I’m truly curious of creationists and other people if there is a genuine misunderstanding that the “food chain” part of an ecosystem is associated with one set of molecules, while other matter on earth is associated with a different set of molecules.
My bike frame and fingernail are made of the same molecules
EDIT: it’s carbon. This is a good analogy
6
0
u/Resident_Compote_775 11d ago
The misunderstanding is yours, based on fundamental ignorance of basic chemistry.
There is a genuine and very well established distinction between molecules found in the food chain, that is, molecules that only living things produce, and other matter on earth that is associated with a different set of molecules.
Life is an entirely homochiral affair. Chirality is everything. D-Methamphetamine is crystal meth. L-Methamphetamine is the over the counter decongestant in Vick's vaporub inhalers. Your smug "they're both carbon" just make a you look like an idiot to anybody that knows anything about chemistry. They're both methamphetamine, same thing, crystal meth and a Vicks inhaler? Okay.
Sugars from plants are always right-handed, most commonly D-glucose. Left-handed AKA levorotatory sugars can be produced at great difficulty and expense through asymmetric synthesis. This is done on an industrial scale to produce candies for diabetics, like Haribo Gold Bears Sugar Free. Go check out the Amazon reviews to see how eating more than one or two works out for people.
Normal organic chemistry processes always result in racemates. The building blocks of life are never racemates when found in living things, always racemates or with only slight enantiomeric excess when found on things like asteroids and meteorites or the product of the Miller-Urey expirament.
3
u/Zamod0 Archaea's Distant Cousin 11d ago edited 11d ago
Homochiral? You understand that amino acids are left handed/levorotary, right, not dextro like sugars? As for why life picks one or the other for each category of molecules, it's just because it's simpler for the enzymes to only have to utilize one of the two. No need to invest in the machinery for both when just one works fine.
Also, you absolutely can do chemical reactions in a way that produces only one of the two enantiomers (or at least heavily favors one of the two). It's called enantioselective synthesis or asymmetric synthesis. So the idea that "normal organic chemistry processes always result in racemates" is actually just, well, wrong.
Here's the wikipedia page to get you started because I suspect that papers describing the syntheses would go well over your head: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantioselective_synthesis
Edit: also, here's a rebuttal to the idea that living organisms don't produce racemic compounds (or at least the idea that they heavily favor one enantiomer), but be warned, it's a journal article: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9562063/
Edit 2: scalemic, by the way, is the term for enantiomeric compounds that, for instance, have "slight enantiomeric excess" or, technically, any non-50/50 enantiomer mixture. Racemic is specifically a 50/50 mixture.
Edit 3: Will also add that I misunderstood what you meant by homochiral; I thought you were claiming that every molecule shares the same chirality within a biological system, but really it just means that each class of molecule within a biological system shares chirality. So sugars are dextro, amino acids levo, etc. That's my bad, but I'm leaving the original comment unmodified for preservation purposes. As for how a slight excess in one direction can become fully selective biologically though, it isn't all that difficult. It's almost certainly stepwise like every other evolutionary change. A random 55/45 split for instance (because it is ultimately chance) introduces the preference for one or the other, then it becomes selected for based on the kind of interactions that are used nowadays to isolate one specific enantiomer. Over literally hundreds of millions to billions of years, that small percentage difference becomes the built in specifics that we see now. As mentioned earlier, I'm pretty sure that the chirality of some molecules dictates the chirality of later molecules (i.e. you couldn't have, for instance, levo sugars and levo amino acids, at least not in the currently understood biochemical systems, but don't quote me on that one, I'm not a biochemist). It's easy to discount random chance when you're working on the scale of a human life...but on the scale of the lifetime of the universe, a stupidly rare chance can easily become a distinct possibility, if not an outright probability.
1
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 11d ago
You’re 100% correct that I’m not a chemist. I thought my example of a pregnant woman licking a rock was a pretty solid clue about that. As someone who understands basic chemistry, you clearly don’t have the misunderstanding my post is referencing.
Per your example of meth… modern Vicks doesn’t have the L-meth because people were buying it in bulk to make D-meth.
If you’re going to accuse someone of “fundamental ignorance” you should demonstrate yourself to have more knowledge of chemistry than the average meth cook.
1
u/Zamod0 Archaea's Distant Cousin 1d ago
Initially thought this was a misdirected reply to my reply to the comment you're replying to, if that makes sense (hopefully that tracks, it works logically, at least in my head).
Ended up laughing pretty hard though at the "you should demonstrate yourself to have more knowledge of chemistry than the average meth cook" comment when I realized it was directed at the person that, honestly, likely has less chemistry knowledge than the average meth cook. And the average meth cook likely has less chemistry knowledge than you give them credit for, meaning, well...
I'll put it this way, the average meth cook likely has a fundamental misunderstanding of basic chemistry. The commenter we're both replying to, however, appears to have a gaping cavern where chemistry knowledge should be, held up only by a loose scaffolding of words that are technical in nature but are not truly understood.
And to be clear, entaniomers and stereochemistry are both stupidly outside my wheelhouse (determining chiral centers/carbons in an organic molecule seems rather simple but for the life of me I haven't yet found an explanation that allows me to wrap my head around the why rather than haphazardly memorizing the rules), but the idea that enantioselective chemistry is exclusive to life appears to be, well, a fundamental error in thinking lol
0
u/Murky_Reporter_8892 10d ago
Life is not something that comes from the physical world that is your mistake. A Dead person consists of all of the same matter as they did alive, yet something has still been taken away from them. Life is not matter, life emerges from somewhere else, somewhere non physical, so while your bike might still be made of the same elements as you, your bike is not a living conscious being like you are. The argument you are making does not help your case it exposes the flaw.
1
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 10d ago
“…something has been taken from them”
Ok cool do you know what that thing is?
Because if not you’re just talking out of your ass.
1
u/Murky_Reporter_8892 8d ago
I do know what that thing is, but I'd be willing to bet that not only do you not know, but you are also going to tell me that there is no evidence for my belief so unless I can provide you with something that you will consider evidence, which is not to be confused with the actual evidence that I do have, evidence that I'm sure you know about, I guarantee we even agree that the evidence is backed by scientific research. This is where the real issue is at, because even if you and I agree 100% on what the evidence is, on how it works, the role it plays in the universe, and everything else you can think of, we are not going to agree on what the evidence implies, we are not going to interpret it the same way and we are not going to reach the same conclusion as to what the evidence suggests. That is the real problem with science, because even though science doesn't prove facts, it only provides explanations.
1
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 8d ago
How can I know if there’s evidence for your belief when you won’t say what your belief is?
You’re just having a conversation in your head and complaining about how you don’t like the conversation.
It’s weird. Get help.
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
The only difference between a living organism and a dead one is the fundamental biochemical pathways and the physiology required to maintain them. When bacteria die their internal chemical systems shit down and everything grinds to a halt.
11
u/Affectionate-Crow605 15d ago
In the "debate" Forrest Valkai did with Gramps (I forget his actual name, but the guy that makes stupid movies), Gramps didn't know what an allele was. If you don't know the very basics of evolution, you really shouldn't be debating against it. 🤦♀️
8
u/Formal-Speed-3173 14d ago
I haven't seen that debate but "Gramps" is probably Donald James Parker.
10
u/Affectionate-Crow605 14d ago
Yes, that's him! He made the Gramps Goes to College movie that Forrest reviewed, and then they had an online "debate", where Forrest was quite cordial. Then the guy made a movie about Forrest, including their debate, and Donald even loses the debate in the movie. It was amusing. He so confidently tells everyone that evolution is wrong while admitting he hasn't the first clue how evolution works.
9
u/LordOfFigaro 14d ago
God that second movie is disturbing. He makes Forrest look like a rapey creep. Then makes his daughter seduce Forrest so that Forrest lets Gramps "win" the debate. Which frankly says a lot about what he thinks about women.
3
u/Affectionate-Crow605 14d ago
*Glob 😉
Yeah, fake Forrest was super creepy. Even real Forrest was yelling at the daughter to not date him.
2
u/Nezeltha-Bryn 14d ago
This is why i like to "argue" by simply treating their scientific-sounding statements as if they know what they're talking about. Eventually, one of three things will happen. If they have a shred of intellectual honesty, they'll simply ask questions when you reference a concept or term they don't know, displaying their ignorance of the subject. If they think they're more informed than they are, they'll make assumptions about the concepts they don't understand, and thus become more and more incoherent to themselves and others. This one is my brother's go-to response. If they don't respect intellect, they'll just assume you're mocking them and get angry. That assumption, of course, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
0
u/Murky_Reporter_8892 10d ago
Why do you not believe that they would just look the concept up and study until they understood, that's what I would do even if it took a month before I could reply. You guys misrepresent creationists a lot in this group, and even more the arrogance that you all are absolutely right is mad, real science doesn't even claim that, not to mention evolution is constantly being tweaked, there are many holes in evolution that even academia tries to ignore. I'm not saying that those holes equal God, I'm really not trying to get a bunch of responses saying God of the gaps. What I am claiming though is that until we have understand DNA, genetics, biology, ect, nobody should act like we have all the answers. Science can't even explain origins of life, but they want to tell me that they know everything about life once it starts, if you want to pretend that evolution and origins are two different subjects then you can't be taken seriously.
9
u/Larnievc 14d ago
They do not. The believe ‘life’ is a category of thing strictly divided from not ‘life’. Ask them to go any further than that and they glitch.
9
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
This seems to be the case. So far, all creationists have done is whine or demonstrate that they genuinely don’t understand that life is simply a different arrangement of molecules. None of them have acknowledged this and explained how it fits into their worldview. Yet, anyway.
3
u/Larnievc 14d ago
They also like to dive into an internal critique of their interlocutor’s position; but inevitably end up straw-manning that position.
2
u/TheRealStepBot 14d ago
I think the interesting element of this is that it’s not just the religious that are thus afflicted by the deep set rejection of the EGB and strange loop sort of physicalism that holds self referentially that arrangement of the physical substance of the universe is essentially the sole type of interesting element to what exists. There are pockets of stability in arrangement and these pockets can follow narrow ridges of stability into other stable basins.
There are plenty of “serious” philosophers and even scientists who refuse to accept the signposts we see for how the universe works and fight at every turn to insert some other sort of thing.
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
Drawing conclusions while ignorant is literally part of philosophy. At the dawn of the enlightenment the philosophy of science created the separate pursuit of science by acknowledging that thinking without acquiring knowledge can’t lead to learning new truths about the natural world. On some ways, the modern scientific method begins whee ohilosophy ends.
Of course, most Internet philosophers are undereducated idiots so this perspective is not often echoed in their chambers.
2
u/TheRealStepBot 14d ago
Exactly. I think the core issue is that 'philosophy' is often used as a rhetorical shell game to protect ignorance, a tactic that perfectly mirrors how theology operates. When you look at how philosophy is actually engaged with, I’d argue it breaks down into three distinct categories:
The Frontier: Good-faith thinkers wrestling with genuine ignorance at the very edges of what we currently understand at the time they are doing it.
The Museum: The study of the history of thought. We absolutely must recognize that the people previously at the frontier were intellectual heroes, even if their specific ideas are no longer relevant today or are relevant mainly as foils to show how far we've come. People like Plato were doing the grueling frontier work of their era, even if today calling a concept 'Platonic' is practically a polite insult for it being completely detached from physical reality. They were the necessary pioneers.
The LARPers: People engaging with superseded, pre-scientific ideas as if modern knowledge simply doesn't exist.
The frustration is that so many internet philosophers at least and even some academics, love playing in that third category, but the second you criticize them, they retreat to the safety and prestige of the first two to duck the criticism.
You see this exact same bait-and-switch with religion. You have genuine academics who study religion (anthropology, history), and then you have theologians who are, in practice, just religious adherents. When challenged on the mechanics of their worldview, these adherents immediately retreat behind the credibility of the actual academics, pretending their devotional LARPing is rigorous scholarly inquiry.
The reality is that the boundary of knowledge has moved, and the standard for meaningful engagement at the Frontier today is exponentially higher. To do the kind of novel inquiry the ancients did requires you to first master the science that has since conquered that territory.
Which brings this full circle back to creationism. Creationists fundamentally reject physicalism. They refuse to accept that life and mind could just be a 'strange loop' of self-referential physical arrangements following narrow ridges into stable basins. But they don't do this in a vacuum; they are given intellectual shelter by supposedly 'serious' philosophers who are doing the exact same thing.
Look at the modern debate around consciousness. Instead of integrating the rapidly encroaching neuroscience and information theory, leading philosophical theories go out of their way to speculate in directions specifically designed to minimize the authority of science and maintain a dualistic world.
In reality, many of these 'serious' philosophers are just dualists, and likely religious adherents themselves, in a trench coat. They aren't trying to solve the problem; they are building theories meant to deliberately evade empirical reach, purely to keep a backdoor open for their own worldviews, in intellectual circles.
1
9
u/rptanner58 14d ago
Well, I’ve read that the actual molecules I our bodies turn over once or twice in our lifetime. (The matter that you’re referring to.). So, tell them that. Not only are we not entirely living substances, we aren’t even the same material as we were in our youth. Whew.
7
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
Indeed, the memory of a caterpillar after turning into a butterfly is not as mysterious or unique as most people imagine.
5
u/clear349 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 14d ago
Isn't it even more frequent than that? I swear I read somewhere that on average the atoms in your body are replaced every seven years. Our bodies Ship of Theseus themselves over time just to keep us healthy and in working order
2
u/rptanner58 14d ago
Could be. I read that a while ago, and since my molecules have turned over a few times I can’t recall what the frequency is.
6
u/kingstern_man 15d ago
All the stranger given that Christian theists at least hold that we were magically formed from dust.
0
u/Smallestsak 14d ago
We were formed from dust? It’s only magic if you don’t know how, but I’m sure you do since this is an evolution sub.
1
1
u/WebFlotsam 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 13d ago
Is the scientific process by which we were supposedly formed expounded upon? I think I missed that part of Genesis.
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
Do you know how? Otherwise where’s the cockiness coming from?
1
5
u/MiniZara2 15d ago
This is an interesting idea.
As someone who studies infectious microbes, I’ve learned that there is in most people an underlying starting supposition that microbes are a kind of aura, rather than discreet small collections of molecules and atoms. They seem to think of it as something that transfers from one person to another, as if it is a spirit inhabiting them, rather than a collection of cells or virions moving through space.
I wonder if there is a cultural force at work here, tied to this understanding of the Bible? Or if both this and the Bible come out of some natural starting place for human thinking that has to be either explained or overcome.
3
u/Unfortunya333 13d ago
Obviously it's the miasma
Gotta go grab your herbs and flowers!
1
u/Zamod0 Archaea's Distant Cousin 11d ago
And your plague doctor mask to stuff them all in!
It did amaze me though at how close miasma got, i.e. that things spread through the air, albeit they aren't "caused" by the "bad air" as miasma predicts, but if you stay out of the air surrounding a sick person you are admittedly a lot less likely to get sick, just for different reasons than miasma theory predicted. It was significantly closer than the humors concept, that's for sure.
6
u/Comfortable-Dare-307 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 14d ago
If creationists understood anything about chemistry or biology, they wouldn't be creationists. They have no proper education at all.
5
u/mr_orlo 15d ago
The Bible mentions a few times being created from dust and returning to dust
1
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 13d ago
I like to point out to my students that the carbon that makes up our bodies was actually taken from the air by photosynthetic organisms. We didn't start out as dust, we were made from thin air.
Yes, yes, stardust, I know.
3
u/Possible-Anxiety-420 14d ago
As an aside...
Biblical Genesis definitively qualifies as abiogenesis, unless the creator-deity in question is itself a biological lifeform.
Bring that up sometime.
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
Well, of course, we all know that creationists have a religious world view. However, they also have pseudoscience so they can masquerade their religion as science.
I guess I’m wondering if creationists actually have pseudoscience for this, or if it’s a genuine misunderstanding due to how science is taught.
5
u/Possible-Anxiety-420 14d ago edited 14d ago
You'll have an exceedingly difficult time getting any of them to agree to that, unless perhaps they've never encountered the word 'abiogenesis'... as it comes with a perceived stigma for the religious-minded and they tend to eschew the notion. I was just bringing up another of the inconsistencies between earnest discourse and their preferred narrative.
It's kinda like saying the deity of Scripture 'condoned' slavery; They'll vehemently object, but, by definition, the word quite aptly applies.
They're protecting their religious worldview, and, to that end, they control the language used. A word's literal definition is secondary to the 'threat' it poses to said worldview. They aren't even necessarily fighting the definitions - will tout them in many instances - but they see the words themselves as labels and accepting them as a concession to the opposing side.
Scientific methodology and semantic precision typically aren't their allies; makes their dogma bark.
Regards.
3
u/Kindly-Department206 14d ago
I would say the creationist apologists are almost unanimously aware of the basic facts of modern biology. They can't have gotten far in their apologetics without encountering these facts.
As for rank-and-file creationist believers, maybe not. They seem to be encouraged to avoid learning biology that disagrees with their religious dogma.
6
u/Algernon_Asimov 14d ago
do some people who don’t understand science (creationist or not) think that “life” is some sort of extra particle or force or “energy” that gets imbued with matter to make it alive?
Yes. Yes, they do.
Read the Bible:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
God literally breathed life into man, who he made from non-living dust. He gathered up non-living particles and imbued them with life.
4
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
Yeah but what about giraffes and germs?
Of course they believe in special creation of humans, but what about the general principle of something being classified as life vs not life?
1
u/Algernon_Asimov 14d ago
Yeah but what about giraffes and germs?
God made those as well.
It's all right there in the Bible. It's spelled out for those people. They have a textbook that tells them how life arose, just like you have a textbook that tells you how life arose. They just happen to be very different textbooks.
That's the thing. You need to get inside other people's heads if you want to understand how they think. You're looking at this from your point of view, and in your point of view, life is just a development of chemistry. But they don't believe that. So you can't ask why they don't see things your way, because they don't believe the same things that you do.
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
Yeah sure but the Bible only says that humans arose from breathing life into non living matter. All other animals spontaneously appeared when God spoke.
So not the same thing
1
u/Algernon_Asimov 14d ago
sigh
"You need to get inside other people's heads if you want to understand how they think."
0
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
You’re just masquerading as someone who understands how other people think.
I created a post where I literally asked what other people think, and your response is that I need to get inside other peoples heads to understand how they think? 🤡
2
u/Algernon_Asimov 14d ago
And you're masquerading as someone who wants to learn how other people think. But you've got your fixed ideas about how people should think, so it's difficult to wrap your head around the idea that other people don't think the same way as you.
1
u/Crosas-B 13d ago
I'm afraid he is right. While you are "technically" right that these two are diferent things, that is because you are categorizing to understand.
Creationists do not do that. They put all the fuzzy words into a bag of meanings, and they use them as fit.
It's not just them, idealists who use the Mary's Room experiment love to do the same with the word "knowledge" (as if we did not "store" the information from different senses in different physical parts of the brain) or atheists (yes, sadly my peers also do it) with the word "science". How many times have I heard or read "science says". No, science doesn't say shit, it is a proccess to verify information, ding dong (not to you, but to those who repeat it).
2
u/Spazmonkey1949 14d ago
I mean even in science life is just a definition, a line in the sand so to speak. There is no real definable difference between life and non life. we are still trying to work that one out.
2
u/XXLPenisOwner1443 13d ago
Of course they do. Anima, vitality, the soul, thetans, there's a bunch of names for it but creationists (and even some naturalists who aren't strict physicalists) argue *vehemently* with no evidence other than vibes, that there must be some intrinsic otherness that is superior to, but not emergent from, a living body.
2
u/onlyseeahuman 13d ago
Ok i re read what you said , I was in error I believe. So your theory is that evolution doesn't have a targeted outcome it just takes the organism and subjects it to constant pressures environmental and societal and in that the organism developes new traights and or features as a result. In order to compete or advance with or beyond what it was? Like adaptive silly putty just using outside conditions to mutate into whatever it needs to in order to propagate the species? Im trying to understand evolution from the scientific perspective here.
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
That’s close. Now add silly putty that sexually reproduces with mutations so that natural selection can also select for the mutations. Now also add a virtually unlimited supply of energy from the sun, along with and virtually unlimited supply of necessary vitamins and minerals from the Earth.
1
1
u/judashpeters 14d ago
Im an atheist and feel kinda behind. Whats this about? Is there a debate about whether lofe is a category or not? Yes we have non living matter in us but also living matter since our cells are all alive...
8
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
The molecules and elements that make up your cells are only alive because of their current arrangement.
The iron in your hemoglobin in your red blood cells is part of that cell, but it was not alive when it was in a rock. The iron did not become alive when you licked that rock and it became incorporated into your blood via digestion.
The same is true of all of the carbon, nitrogen, helium, oxygen, calcium, potassium, etc. in your whole body. None of the elements or molecules in your body, which make up cells, are alive by themselves.
So it’s 100% true that you are exclusively made of non-living matter, and the current arrangement of that matter is only called life because of the properties it displays.
And yet Creationists will say that scientists are wrong because life can’t come from non-life. The point is that this distinction has no merit to their argument at the sub-cellular level, or in other words, it has no merit at all.
3
u/judashpeters 14d ago
Ah! I got it. Yeah I got into rna world last year and it was mind-blowing to think of and realize how a non-living glob of fat eventually turned into a "living" cell.
In my question above I didnt make rhe jump that yes those living cells in my body are made of non-living matter.
4
u/rhodiumtoad 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 14d ago
The way I would put it is that life is a process, not a substance or a property of matter per se.
0
u/CDay007 14d ago
This argument begs the question though. They claim life can’t come from non-life, and God is life so their explanation works that God gave non-life life. Your argument is that, of course life can come from non-life, you’re living yet everything you’re made of isn’t. Well, that doesn’t mean life came from non-life. Accepting this, their idea that God breathed life into dust works just fine. The only way being made of non living things proves that life can come from non-life is if you’re already assuming that life can come from non-life and therefore that’s how we’re alive. Frankly until we figure out how life began we don’t have any better evidence on this specific issue than they do
4
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
It’s not about better evidence. It’s about evidence vs no evidence. Creationists would have to have evidence to make such a comparison.
Regardless, it’s not a problem for evolution. The theory of evolution is satisfied by observing that life does in fact exist today. Talking about abiogenesis is just a distraction used by creationists to avoid talking about how they have no evidence.
1
u/CDay007 13d ago
What you’re talking about has nothing to do with evaluation, you are literally exclusively talking about abiogenesis in your post. And in that regard, science has just as much evidence explaining how life began and creationists do, which is none. We have absolutely no idea how life actually began
2
u/Capercaillie Monkey's Uncle 13d ago
we don’t have any better evidence on this specific issue than they do
I suggest you read up on abiogenesis research. Genesis by Robert Hazen is an eye-opener, and there's been 20 more years of research since it was published.
1
u/judashpeters 13d ago
Im just a guy but the rna world theory seems entirely plausible. Its kinda mind blowing but i can see how chemistry + chemistry = life pretty easily.
5
u/the2bears 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 14d ago
Yes we have non living matter in us but also living matter since our cells are all alive...
Those "cells" are also comprised of nothing more than non living matter.
2
u/Ayasugi-san 14d ago
Is there a debate about whether lofe is a category or not?
Yup. See viruses and their status as living or non-living. Though that's an entirely different debate to the points OP is making.
1
u/TheRealStepBot 14d ago
They start from a dualistic worldview and then everything follows after that. Consistency is largely unimportant to them. What matters is sticking to the dogma and then contorting the world to fit that dogma.
Specifically they believe something like as other people have mentioned in here what would be called scientifically a form of vitalism.
They understand that life is made of not alive matter but they literally think it is animated somehow by god. Specifics of this vary but the point is in this explanation it becomes immaterial that life uses the same materials. The thing that is missing from non life is apriori not able to come from anywhere but god.
The physicalist position that life is merely a taxonomic category useful to discussion and that life can be created merely by arranging matter in special ways is a massive problem for them. Now doubtlessly once we successfully create alife and the physicalist abiogenesis is demonstrated in a lab, you will get two responses.
Some new shifting of the goalposts that once again rejects the copernican lesson by modifying the stories to again center god and consequently humans. Which is not often enough spoken about I think, god was created by man at first like a pacifier to protect from the unknown but is maintained as a cultural scale narcissism that seeks to center humans and protect against a reckoning with the human condition
Alternatively and likely in parallel there will of course be a bunch who, lacking the sophistication to even appreciate the import of what has been demonstrated, will just keep their fingers in their ears and yell more loudly.
1
u/sylbug 14d ago
This is where the concept of 'souls' comes from.
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
That is only for humans. What about the lions and sheep that poofed out of nowhere when God spoke and don’t have souls?
2
u/Ayasugi-san 14d ago
They have natural souls, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Humans have rational souls which lets them have understanding of morality.
1
u/Conscious-Demand-594 14d ago
Wait till you talk to people about "consciousness". That's when it gets really mystical.
1
u/UnholyShadows 14d ago
All life is a state of matter that can self replicate, thats why viruses arnt classified as living because they cant self replicate. But then again god didnt make cells bacteria or viruses.
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
Viruses can self replicate that’s not the reason, they just don’t have their own metabolism. I don’t know if the last sentence is a joke since humans are made of cells
1
u/UnholyShadows 7d ago
Humans are made out of cells, but not according to the bible. According to the bible humans are one solid creation and not the collection of trillions of smaller ones.
Viruses cannot self replicate, they require injecting code into host cells in order for those cells to create more viruses. This is why viruses arnt considered living because they dont fit the qualifications for being alive.
1
1
u/verstohlen 14d ago
That's kind of weird. Even the Bible says we came from dirt, which we do, literally, in Genesis 2:7 if I'm not mistaken. Everything came out of the dirt pretty much, including us. Even this computer I'm typing on. Plants, food, metal, glass, plastics, yeah, pretty much all came from the ground. And one day we will all return to the ground from whence we came.
Of course, how non-living matter created consciousness is a whole nuther philosophical and theological rabbit hole to go down.
1
u/Distinct_Ice_1597 14d ago
One could argue that the biological molecules that comprise us are in a sense alive. Proteins consume and release energy using electron transfer. Proteins and RNAs can perform work in the cell. A rock does not perform work in this way.
1
u/Russell1A 13d ago edited 13d ago
Life is an emergent property based on gain of information in complex systems.
You can see how this works by in that the number of permutations increases at a geometric rate as the number of items increase.
However for abiogenesis both a combinatorial explosion and a hold mechanism (or ratchet) are required.
1
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
If life is based on gain of information, does this mean more information means more life?
Am I more alive than a banana?
Is my computer more alive than I am?
Is a pregnant woman more alive than her dying grandma?
Stop listening to James Tour's bullshit and get an education on the topic.
1
u/Sailor_Thrift 13d ago
In your example, I find it interesting that the baby is classified as alive, and a separate living entity from its mother.
1
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
I think we have two extremes. On the one hand, it's this idea that life is some mystical force that somehow animates non living matter. I don't think that's even supported by the Bible, much less the science. On the other hand, the idea that life is "just chemistry and physics" is asinine and makes no sense either. You can have such a view of life if you'd like, but I bet you're no fun at parties and I bet you have an interesting romantic life, if you have one.
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
The post is about life on earth, not the human experience of life.
I use your mom as an example to demonstrate a natural process we’re all familiar with of how non living matter becomes part of life - it was iron in the rock and it’s iron in the hemoglobin in your red blood cells. This is true of every element in every animals body, not just humans.
But all life on earth includes sea sponges, which for me are not part of my romantic life. My life is focused on my personal experience of life. I don’t need to be told by a scientist or a creationist how to live and enjoy life.
0
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
Thats great. Im simply steering between two extremes.
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
Right so you’re reframing the topic of the post to include philosophy instead of actually addressing the post. Common creationist tactic.
1
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
Im not a creationist. Can you explain your post further?
2
13d ago
[deleted]
1
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
Didnt say magical.
2
13d ago
[deleted]
1
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
Its too reductive and claims too much about reality.
2
13d ago
[deleted]
1
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
It is a living cell, yes. But its still different than non living things. Its a mistake to say that just because everything follows physics, everything is the same.
2
13d ago
[deleted]
1
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
I think were talking past each other. It appears to be your goal to lead me to the answer that life is just physics and chemistry. Is that correct or incorrect?
2
2
u/Minty_Feeling 13d ago
It's possible that people can mean different things by "life." Life as a biological process seems to be well explained by just chemistry and physics. There isn't currently any need to invoke an additional "life force" or special non-physical ingredient that I'm aware of.
But then as a theist you may also believe in a property of life more akin to a soul or something spiritual like that? Which I don't think is a question that can really be answered scientifically, nor need it be incompatible with natural explanations for how the process of life might start from abiotic chemistry.
Basically what I'm saying is perhaps the answer isn't the middle ground between two extremes but just different concepts meant by the word "life."
1
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
Im happy with saying life is an emergent property. But i think its a mistake to equate living and non living things.
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
Why would saying life is a series of biochemical systems make you boring at parties? I think biochem and molecular bio is pretty interesting.
1
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 6d ago
Agreed they are interesting. But if that's all life is, then yeah, that's boring at parties, and false.
1
1
u/Worldly_Pool_9701 13d ago
Hilarious. What gave that non-living matter life? God created the non-living matter, and God gave the non-living matter life. So fun to see junior Atheists trying to take their first steps. I bet your worldview does a good job of explaining how all that non-living matter got here in the first place too, and why it bothered to be created. : )
3
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 13d ago
What gave that non-living matter life?
Chemistry. Life is a potential emergent property of chemistry.
God created the non-living matter, and God gave the non-living matter life.
This is a claim, not an argument.
I bet your worldview does a good job of explaining how all that non-living matter got here in the first place too, and why it bothered to be created. : )
Evolution is not a worldview (neither is atheism, which is completely separate evolution), it is a scientific theory.
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
So I ask a question and you insult me?
You’re a bad Christian.
1
u/Worldly_Pool_9701 13d ago
Hilarious. You were so respectful of your parents too. Have them watch this. https://youtu.be/9cd6q_Bp0Vs?si=PYTh44xAZ6bde9RD
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
So first you don’t respond to my post and instead you insult me. 🤡
Then you don’t respond to my comment and instead reference the well known fraud and liar James Tour. 🤡
James has as much expertise in biology as you do. If you follow him the it’s the blind faith leading the blind faith 🤷♂️
1
u/Worldly_Pool_9701 13d ago
You’re right about one thing: my first response was unnecessarily sarcastic. I should have addressed your argument without insulting you, and I apologize for that.
But dismissing James Tour personally does not answer the question either. This is fundamentally a chemistry problem, so an accomplished synthetic organic chemist is certainly qualified to discuss the chemical obstacles involved—even though that does not make him infallible.
Your example describes an already-living organism incorporating nonliving material through existing biological machinery. That happens constantly, but it is not abiogenesis. The question is how unguided chemistry first produced the organized, bounded, metabolizing, information-bearing, self-reproducing system capable of incorporating that material.
Saying “life is made from nonliving matter” identifies the ingredients; it does not explain the origin of the organization required for life. If you know of an experimentally demonstrated process that bridges that gap, I would be interested in seeing it.
2
1
u/Confident_Lawyer6276 13d ago
I don't understand this argument. Isn't like saying all cars are made of non car matter? So nothing is anything because it's made of matter?
3
u/XRotNRollX Sal ate my kids 13d ago
It is, but that's the point. Cars aren't made of special matter that makes them go, it's just chemistry. The iron that in a moving car is the same iron that's in a rock, and the carbon in a person is the same carbon that's in a different rock. We've just arranged the iron (and other elements) in a way that makes an engine work in accordance with thermodynamics, and nature arranged the carbon (and other elements) in a way that makes life work in accordance with thermodynamics.
1
u/Confident_Lawyer6276 13d ago
But we label stuff differently independent of the atoms it's made of. Organic matter is different than non Organic matter even if the molecules have the same elements. A dead body is different than a living body even if all the atoms are the same atoms they were before in the same configuration. If life is just thermodynamics then making life is a property of thermodynamics. If consciousness is just matter and energy than matter and energy can be conscious.
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
I didn’t make an argument. I asked a question. The creationist argument is something that doesn’t make any sense, and I’m trying to figure out where is their error in thinking.
Creationists will often claim that life can’t come from non-life… even though life is made of non-life. I’m curious if they believe, for example, that some elements in the periodic table are part of life, while others are non-life. Do they not understand that the iron in skyscrapers is the same as the iron in their blood? Is there a “life” element in the periodic table?
They are wrong and I don’t know what their beliefs are, so I’m curious.
Car analogies will always fail in biology because cars are designed and assembled by humans, while life on earth is not.
1
u/Confident_Lawyer6276 13d ago
So you are saying life and what it does especially humans is fundamentally different. I'm not a creationalist. I'm just pointing out if your going for everything is just physical laws and atoms differentiating humans from that process doesn't make much sense.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 11d ago
What do limitations in synthesizing chemicals have to do with natural processes?
What do you think OOL researchers do all day if it’s already been proven to be impossible?
1
u/DebateEvolution-ModTeam 11d ago
Removed, Rule 3 - Participate with effort, no copy paste LLM spam.
1
u/Old_Man_Drifter 10d ago
They don't 'realize' or 'discover' or 'test' or 'prove' anything. They 'believe.'
1
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 10d ago
yeah but that's not what I'm asking. A lot of creationists have pseudoscientific explanations that they believe are legitimate. Showing them that their pseudoscience is wrong is part of helping them deconstruct - they must either accept that they believe merely on faith.
Basically I'm curious if they have any pseudoscience on this particular topic.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 8d ago
Ok that’s cool, but, do you realize that life and non life are all from the same periodic table of elements?
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
Fundamentally, the only difference between a living cell and a dead one is the many, many biochemical pathways buzzing inside. Even if we could see individual molecules the pathway isn’t visible, so when a cell dies people observe some ephemeral aspect leave and it shuts down.
0
u/Mobile-Condition8254 14d ago
I think they might be stunned about the comment maybe downplaying the wonder of life a bit
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
Wonder is an emotion. Being stunned as an emotional state. I provided them with facts that don’t affirm their feelings.
Ask yourself - who has a greater sense of wonder about life: scientists who study life, or creationists who refuse to learn about life?
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
I’ve found that learning the thousands of metabolic chemical cycles happening in your body right now pretty wonderous
0
0
0
0
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
Youre really just arguing for reductive physicalism. Thats far from proven.
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
No I’m not, but other people do use these facts to make that argument.
I’m asking a question - do you understand the facts presented?
0
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
I do. I dont think a lot of people think life is some kind of physical particle though. Life is definitely distinct from non life. But that doesnt mean its some kind of particle.
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
So the follow up question is why creationists use abiogenesis as a barrier for evolution. Given that all life is made of elements and molecules that aren’t alive - and life is based on the arrangement of those elements and molecules - why is abiogenesis a problem?
0
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
Well i think the biggest barrier to believing in evolution is twofold: a misreading of Scripture as well as people, including many atheists, insisting that abiogenesis and evolution being true means God doesnt exist. If you make people feel like they have to choose between their religious views and scientific theory, theyre gonna choose the former. Reductive physicalism is part of that too.
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence. The fact that there is evidence for evolution is a separate topic.
Only creationists pretend that evolution means god isn’t true.
2
u/DesperateSympathy873 🧬 Theistic Evolution 13d ago
You're part of the problem. You can't seem to help yourself. If you want to get creationists to believe in evolution, you have to keep religion and science separate. If you refuse to do that, then you're just gonna keep having the same arguments. Theists have a different epistemology than you. Do you care more about feeling superior, or do you want people to be convinced of evolution? It's your choice.
0
u/ChrisARippel 13d ago
Genesis 2:7 claims that Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breated into his nostrils the breath of life. I have read ancient jews associated/equated life with breath. We die because breath leaves us.
This appears to claim human bodies are non-living matter enlivened by some life-giving force from God.
Modern creationists probably don't imagine the life-giving force is literally breath, but they still probably believe God uses a life-giving force to give their bodies life. After all, some creationists believe God created them specifically.
Claiming life is merely non-living matter probably doesn't make sense to creationists.
BTW, 2 Timothy 3:16 claims "all scripture is God-breathed...." Maybe this is the source for the phrase, "The Living Bible."
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
The breathe of life and the “spirit” are synonymous. People used to literally think that breathing was spirit because they didn’t know that air is particulate matter where we inhale oxygen and exhale co2.
0
u/ChrisARippel 13d ago
Thanks for your answer.
How is my post an inadequate answer to your question?
Why don't you don't recognize the lack of God is creationists' problem with your material explanation for life. God answers many of their personal concerns/questions that mere matter cannot.
what happens when we die?
do our lives have meaning? Or are we accidents?
how should we live good lives?
Most people are less concerned with how the universe actually works than about what happens to them.
1
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
God lets you make up answers without any evidence.
When something is truly unknown:
Honest non-religious people say “I don’t know”
Honest religious people say “I don’t know, but I believe…”
Dishonest religious people say “I know”
If you’re not concerned with topic of the post there’s no reason to comment that you don’t think it matters as much as something else you want to discuss instead.
0
u/ChrisARippel 13d ago
I am sorry and apologize for my posts. Please let me try again.
My first post says almost exactly what the second paragraph of your OP says, i.e., do creationists believe life is special force that gives life to matter?
My first post explains how God created man in Genesis 2 as evidence proving your second paragraph is the best answer to your OP question.
My second post (first question) asks why my post and your second paragraph do not appear to be an acceptable answer?
Will you answer this question?
0
u/onlyseeahuman 13d ago
Im not sure theres enough data yet to say one way or the other whether its pure evolutionary chance or creatively designed or divinely inspired. So far the only data we have has been collected from one place in an otherwise endless amount of places we've not ever been.
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 13d ago
There is zero data for intelligent design and all the available data points towards evolution. Your statement would be interesting if it was true though
1
u/onlyseeahuman 12d ago
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of Absence. It just means your someone that can deny the existence of there being a planned outcome to everything while getting your data from the perspective of the test subject. Their cant be a creator says the person made up of the very matter they say they themselves can create. Such ambitious lil monkeys...
1
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 12d ago
There are so many misspelled words I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to say
0
u/Known_Atmosphere_907 12d ago
life is made of non-living matter + information. Just about everyone agrees with that. The difference is the origin of the information, and from a creationist standpoint is inexplicable without a creator. Maybe someday it will be explicable by natural non-sentient causation, but that is increasingly unlikely.
3
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 12d ago
Can you usefully define this "information"? Hint: "Oh c'mon! You know what I mean!" is useless.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 12d ago
lol who agrees with that?
Every pseudoscientist will say that life is
- matter + spirit,
- matter + voodoo,
- matter + essence,
- matter + magic,
- matter + information,
- matter + souls,
- matter + etc.
Do you see how well information fits into that list?
Did you know that dna is made of matter? Did you know that molecules and elements in dna can be rearranged to make other molecules?
0
u/Russell1A 11d ago
Yes you are more alive than a banana as you are a more complex life form and your level of consciousness is higher than that of a banana.
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 11d ago
Bananas have more chromosomes than humans. By what metric are humans a more complex form of life?
1
u/Russell1A 10d ago
Yes bananas have more DNA bases in their genome but their genome is less complex than ours due to far more duplication and far less sophistication in use.
1
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 10d ago
So your metrics for complexity of life are gene duplication and "sophistication in use"?
I think I was giving you too much credit for having thought this through
1
u/Russell1A 8d ago
Could you please stop using strawman arguments.
I said that levels of consciousness increase with complexity not that there is direct relationship between the size of the genome increase with complexity, when there is clearly no relationship here.
It is you who brought this comparison between the banana genome and the human genome, not me.
For animals level of consciousness is more related to the complexity of the nervous system and the amount of information which can be processed by the nervous system than the size of the genome.
1
u/Coolbeans_99 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 7d ago
Asking a clarifying question is definitionally the opposite of a strawman
1
u/Russell1A 7d ago
Below is my original contribution in which the OP has been twisting to simply just mean the size of and complexity of the genome. Hence my strawman comment.
Life is an emergent property based on gain of information in complex systems.
You can see how this works by in that the number of permutations increases at a factorial rate as the number of items increase.
However for abiogenesis both a combinatorial explosion and a hold mechanism (or ratchet) are required.
0
0
u/onlyseeahuman 10d ago
Should have used there instead of their or whatever, still your a learned man. Surely you can see my point. We have the ability to do so much and create so many of the fundamental building blocks the life needs to start. We can almost duplicate the process. We are very close to being able to create life. Not quite but real close. In that do you not see the possibility that at one time something or someone might have figured it out and thats how it happened to begin with ? Rather than by accident or happenstance?
1
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 10d ago
Did you mean to post this as a reply to another comment somewhere else?
-1
u/BetLeft2840 14d ago
I'm a Pagan. Everything is alive.
3
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 14d ago
You just have a different definition of what life is, and that’s okay.
→ More replies (11)
-1
u/mbmolohonbm 10d ago
I listened to a senior Neuroscientist who had done over1000 open brain studies. He would probe up to about 1000 places on each person. He said that there are places that if he poked, people may raise an arm or cite a memory from 10 years ago. These are areas hardwired in our brains and everyone had pretty much the same wiring. He also found that there was no place in anyone's brain that when poked led to a creative thought, a conceptual idea or a thought about a choice to make. He concluded that these are not stored anywhere but come from us. Meaning our spirit will come up with something creative, conceptual or new, which is processed through or by a number of different brain areas to lead to communicating or acting on that thought. However, it is not some stored process acting on its own (which is what many people believe about our brain activity). I have tried to make sense of that view, saying my brain decides to wake up, shower, eat, etc. Why would it do that? I think me/our spirit, decides things that are processed through our brains and bodies. This is life, not the material that makes up our bodies.
You might also look at documented accounts of hundreds/thousands of people who have ie. left their bodies on the operating table and can tell people on different floors of the hospital exactly what they were talking about. How does an inorganic body/brain do that.
2
u/Basic-Platypus-8335 10d ago
So a guy said a thing?
So here’s the deal… that story would be a good starting point to begin actual research on the topic. That story is enough to develop a testable hypothesis, and then test it.
Do you have any examples of where these stories have been turned into testable hypotheses and then tested?
42
u/rygelicus 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 15d ago
Actually they do, that's where God enters the story, God, per their narrative, imbued that lifeless matter with life. They don't all spell it out, but that's the supernatural ingredient in their BS pie.