Ghost Hunters International

[mooeypoo]

I am just saying that there is no science that states atoms or groups of atoms become alive. Science has not given the chemical formula for life.

That's not the claim that "science" makes about life. No one suggests atoms themselves are alive. Animals, plant life and us humans are alive by our OWN definition, and we are a collection of billions of atoms and molecules.

 

You're creating a strawman and you're basing the rest of your claims on that *flawed* representation of the claim so you can counter it.

 

I say that life is not made of atoms. Some on this thread are convinced that life is made of atoms.

 

My claim is backed up by lack of scientific evidence that life is a chemical composition. There is no science that gives validity to the idea that life is made of chemicals.

First off, you are basing this claim on a flawed representation of the counterclaim. That's a straw man. It's not science.

 

Second, lack of evidence is not evidence by itself. You are making a claim here, and you need to provide evidence for that claim otherwise no one will accept it.

 

No one has made the claim that atoms are life or that atoms are alive. YOU are making the claim that others make that claim.

 

If you think you know what life is, or that life is more than the physical, then YOU are responsible to prove it. Bcause you're making the claim.

 

 

Those that believe that life is some type of atomic structure would just have to provide scientific evidence that backs up that claim.

Again, Eric, no one claims that.

 

My statement that life is NOT made of atoms is proven by the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

Read up. Lack of evidence is not evidence by itself. You need to supply evidence for your own hypothesis.

 

Those who claim that life is an atomic structure DO have to provide proof that life is an atomic structure or that atoms have the ability to become alive.

That is not the claim. The claim might be that life is COMPRISED of atomic structure, but that is quite different than saying life "is" an atomic strucutre. That is not the claim. By far.

 

So, yes you do need to prove your case. Why not just prove your point instead of avoiding the question.

No. You're making the claim here, and since lack of evidence is not evidence by itself, you are the one with the burden of proof.

 

Good luck.

[Mr Skeptic]

My statement that life is NOT made of atoms is proven by the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary.

 

Well, there's the fact that all life that has been observed is made of atoms. Atoms are also the only thing we know of that could provide the complexity necessary for life. Removing some or all of the atoms from every life form observed terminates that life form. Besides, it's proven by the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary

[Eric 5]

Eric: You might find this interesting:

 

 

Thank you for your input.

 

That video is a lesson in chemistry and the physics of these chemicals.

 

Nothing about life. The whole video is based on the growth and reactions of vesicles. Vesicles are not living things. Go ahead and check it out.

 

Vesicles are not living things, so the whole video has nothing to do with the beginning of life.

 

Sorry, nice try.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That's not the claim that "science" makes about life. No one suggests atoms themselves are alive. Animals, plant life and us humans are alive by our OWN definition, and we are a collection of billions of atoms and molecules.

 

You're creating a strawman and you're basing the rest of your claims on that *flawed* representation of the claim so you can counter it.

 

 

First off, you are basing this claim on a flawed representation of the counterclaim. That's a straw man. It's not science.

 

Second, lack of evidence is not evidence by itself. You are making a claim here, and you need to provide evidence for that claim otherwise no one will accept it.

 

No one has made the claim that atoms are life or that atoms are alive. YOU are making the claim that others make that claim.

 

If you think you know what life is, or that life is more than the physical, then YOU are responsible to prove it. Bcause you're making the claim.

 

 

 

Again, Eric, no one claims that.

 

 

Read up. Lack of evidence is not evidence by itself. You need to supply evidence for your own hypothesis.

 

 

That is not the claim. The claim might be that life is COMPRISED of atomic structure, but that is quite different than saying life "is" an atomic strucutre. That is not the claim. By far..

 

Tell me what the difference is.

 

You want to say life might be comprised of atoms. 100% atoms? 90% atoms and 10% something else?

 

Please explain what you mean.

 

 

No. You're making the claim here, and since lack of evidence is not evidence by itself, you are the one with the burden of proof.

 

Good luck.

 

Alright, lets get back on track here.

 

I say that life is not an atomic structure. I say that all living things posses something else that separates the living from the non living.

 

I will agree that all of the living things that we percieve have some form that is made of some atomic structure. This atomic structure is not the source of life or life itself. There is the structure and that thing or energy that animates that structure.

 

Now, do you think that life is a 100% atomic structure?

 

Simply put, I am stating that life is not a particle.

 

Those that disagree with me say that a group of atoms make life.

 

 

 

Do you think that life is some percentage of an atomic structure?

 

The way I see this debate is either life is made of some percentage of atoms or it is not. Those are the two sides. Please correct me if I am wrong.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, there's the fact that all life that has been observed is made of atoms. Atoms are also the only thing we know of that could provide the complexity necessary for life. Removing some or all of the atoms from every life form observed terminates that life form. Besides, it's proven by the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary

 

So what is your point? Are you saying that atoms are alive?

 

You gave an example of removing atoms from a life form would eventually terminate that life form. Those atoms that you removed do they die?

 

What happens when you remove atoms from something that is non living? Does it die?

 

What happens when you add atoms to non living things? Do they become alive?

 

Adding more atoms to a living thing, does that make it more alive?

 

You see you have to show some connection between the atom and life.

 

Do you have any data that shows that atoms are necessary to have life and the difference between those things that are composed of atoms that are non living and those things that are alive and have a form of some sort.

 

Are atoms essential to have life? Do atoms give life?

 

What do atoms have to do with life? That is my question.

[JillSwift]

I'd like to inject a point or two, Eric 5, but I have a very important question that needs to be answered first.

 

Is there any evidence what-so-ever that would convince you that life is an emergent property of the interaction of atoms? Please be honest.

[StringJunky]

" What do atoms have to do with life? That is my question."- Eric

 

If life can exist distinct from atoms, as you propose, how do we detect this atom-free life form...do i feel a sense of deja vu...going round in circles?

 

Science can only work from a foundation of verifiable evidence and standard methodology that can be repeated by anyone with the necessary knowledge. With this in mind, no one has ever discovered a 'living system' existing separately from atoms...have they?

 

 

The point of the video that I linked you to was to help you see how life could begin.

 

Can't you see that starting from a few simple reactions and interactions, these discrete molecular 'entities', gradually over time, build up increasingly complex layers of cyclical biochemical processes? There comes a point in this evolution where all the criteria that we define a living organism by, is fulfilled...at this point we can call it 'life'

 

Outside of this forum we all hold our own beliefs, some of us may even be religious, but within the arena of this forum, which only builds on what is known, we must leave our unsubstantiated beliefs at home...I think this idea of yours is one of those.

 

Scientific research tries to make hypotheses and evidence fit to a central body of knowledge, like adding a new piece to an imaginary incomplete bridge, on the side of a sheer cliff, that extends and leads us further into the unknown. Would you trust your belief in helping to build this bridge?

Edited September 10, 2009 by StringJunky

[Mr Skeptic]

So what is your point? Are you saying that atoms are alive?

 

Of course not. Living things are made of atoms, but the atoms themselves are not alive in the same sense.

 

You gave an example of removing atoms from a life form would eventually terminate that life form. Those atoms that you removed do they die?

 

How can things that aren't alive die? The life composed of those atoms, on the other hand, dies.

 

What happens when you remove atoms from something that is non living? Does it die?

 

What happens when you add atoms to non living things? Do they become alive?

 

No one is saying atoms are alive.

 

Adding more atoms to a living thing, does that make it more alive?

 

It would make it bigger (only if the atoms were integrated into the organism. Adding them in bullet form does not count). Is bigger more alive?

 

You see you have to show some connection between the atom and life.

 

Yes all observed life is made of atoms, just like all observed cars are made of atoms. Get this through your head though: a collection of atoms, not each individual atom.

 

Do you have any data that shows that atoms are necessary to have life and the difference between those things that are composed of atoms that are non living and those things that are alive and have a form of some sort.

 

Yes, all observed life is made of atoms, so it is reasonable to assume this is a requirement. It is unreasonable to assume the opposite since there is no evidence. The difference between life and non-life is that we call life "life" and non-life "non-life". Did you think there was another difference? There is a thread dedicated to the definition of life, but be warned: there is always stuff on the border between the two.

 

Are atoms essential to have life?

 

As far as we know, yes.

 

Do atoms give life?

 

No, but in certain arrangements they do.

 

What do atoms have to do with life? That is my question.

 

The same thing they have to do with cars.

[Sisyphus]

It might help to think of life as an activity rather than a property. A "living thing" is just an object that carries out certain actions. Physically modify it to the point that it can no longer carry out those actions, and it's no longer alive. That, broadly speaking, is what we call "death."

 

The reason the (accurate) analogies with mechanical objects aren't taking hold seems to be the eric is stuck on the notion of "living" vs. "dead" as some non-physical difference, i.e. that a freshly dead body is physically identical to the live one moments before. This is not true, any more than a freshly crashed computer is physically identical to the functioning one moments before. And just like a computer, you can't answer "well what is the difference" except in the most general terms, because there are lots of ways to die, all of which could be described as a "rearrangement of atoms" of one sort or another.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Sisyphus

[Eric 5]

I'd like to inject a point or two, Eric 5, but I have a very important question that needs to be answered first.

 

Is there any evidence what-so-ever that would convince you that life is an emergent property of the interaction of atoms? Please be honest.

 

No.

[mooeypoo]

No.

Then there's no use to have any sort of debate, now, is there?

 

 

Let me put it differently: If you're claiming that no matter what evidence you're shown - that is, no matter how compelling an evidence will be shown, you will stick to your ground, by your own admission - then you are, by your own admission, closed minded.

 

I, for instance, am open to be convinced. I will require evidence, and probably quite compelling to convince me, but I *DO* keep myself open to the chance of being convinced.

 

You are not. This is, therefore, not a basis for a debate. There's no point. Is there?

[Eric 5]

" What do atoms have to do with life? That is my question."- Eric

 

If life can exist distinct from atoms, as you propose, how do we detect this atom-free life form...do i feel a sense of deja vu...going round in circles?

 

Science can only work from a foundation of verifiable evidence and standard methodology that can be repeated by anyone with the necessary knowledge. With this in mind, no one has ever discovered a 'living system' existing separately from atoms...have they??

 

"If life can exist distinct from atoms, as you propose, how do we detect this atom-free life form...do i feel a sense of deja vu...going round in circles?" - StringJunky

 

Maybe life is a force or energy that is not visible, makes no sound, has no taste, has no solidity. It is different then physical universe objects and energy. It is possible that life is something that does not need a vessel or form to be alive. Life could be that thing that is just that, life.

 

 

I am happy to see that you have this purely scientific viewpoint. I hope that you keep this viewpoint at all times. You may be a breath of fresh air when it comes to disscusing science. We will see.

 

Alright, so what are the options here concerning this topic? I see two basic paths to take here in an effort to figure this out, either life is made from atoms or it is not. Once this has been discerned then we can go from there.

 

You say that a living system has never been discovered existing separately from atoms. You are right. A living system is a collection of atoms that are in a form that allow life to interact with the physical universe.

 

You see living systems are made of atoms, but when life is no longer a part of that system, then that system is no longer alive yet still remains a collection of atoms. A dead body is a colection of atoms.

 

Just to set the record straight, I am not a believer in any faith based religion.

 

 

I say that atoms are not alive. I say grouping atoms together do not make them become alive.

 

Lets say that I do not know exactly what life is. I am interested in finding out so I have to collect as much data on this topic and then throw out what does not fit or apply. Even if I do not know the answer right now, I may get a bit closer once the collection of data is sifted through to get rid of false, or inapplicable data.

 

As it stands right now, atoms are not living things, and if atoms were living things the question would still be, what makes the atom alive.

 

So, in our discussion we need to come to some agreement. Since we have not established what makes life or what life is, then lets see if we can agree on what life is not.

 

I will say that atoms no matter the amount or configuration are not alive or will ever become alive and aware.

 

Eventually if we throw out what life isnt we may end up with what life is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

" The point of the video that I linked you to was to help you see how life could begin.

 

Can't you see that starting from a few simple reactions and interactions, these discrete molecular 'entities', gradually over time, build up increasingly complex layers of cyclical biochemical processes? There comes a point in this evolution where all the criteria that we define a living organism by, is fulfilled...at this point we can call it 'life'?

 

The collection of atoms is not life since life is not something that added or constructed. There are life forms, but the form is not life. It would be possible to make something such as a robot to act like a living thing, go through all the motions and even give this robot artificial intelligence. This robot may have all of the right moves and responses to act as though it is alive, but it is not alive.

 

I think that you should not rely on the forms that are alive and put your attention on what is it that animates or is part of this form that gives it life.

 

" Outside of this forum we all hold our own beliefs, some of us may even be religious, but within the arena of this forum, which only builds on what is known, we must leave our unsubstantiated beliefs at home...I think this idea of yours is one of those.

 

Scientific research tries to make hypotheses and evidence fit to a central body of knowledge, like adding a new piece to an imaginary incomplete bridge, on the side of a sheer cliff, that extends and leads us further into the unknown. Would you trust your belief in helping to build this bridge?

 

I have no beliefs.

 

 

One last thing. You go by StringJunky, does that mean you have an interest in string theory?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Then there's no use to have any sort of debate, now, is there??

 

What kind of attitude is this? I do not agree with your point of view so there is no need for discussion? That is not science. Science does not move forward through agreement to one viewpoint, and no looking or thinking of other viewpoints.

 

 

Let me put it differently: If you're claiming that no matter what evidence you're shown - that is, no matter how compelling an evidence will be shown, you will stick to your ground, by your own admission - then you are, by your own admission, closed minded.

 

 

What evidence? Just show me a scientific explaination or definition that is evidence that life is made of atoms.

 

No evidence has been given, only assumptions, or opinions. I have done research on this topic and I found that science has not come out and said that life is an atomic structure.

 

You can resolve this debate by giving evidence of some sort that science says or agrees that life is made of atoms. A website, a definition, something.

 

I am sure that you think that you are right in your assertion, great. The problem is that I am looking for what science says about this matter and not just what one person thinks. You seem to think that life is some form of atoms, fine, what science backs this up? Is there any?

 

 

 

 

I, for instance, am open to be convinced. I will require evidence, and probably quite compelling to convince me, but I *DO* keep myself open to the chance of being convinced. ?

 

So am I. This attitude that you have is the same attitude I have. Please just give one scientific definition, experiment, explaination that gives compelling evidence that life is what you think it is. Use science to prove your point.

 

 

You are not. This is, therefore, not a basis for a debate. There's no point. Is there?

 

Do not make assumptions and be quick to judgment. I have raised some questions that cast a doubt on this "life is atomic idea". Can you provide any science that states life is some configuration of atoms? I would like to see it.

[JillSwift]

What kind of attitude is this? I do not agree with your point of view so there is no need for discussion? That is not science. Science does not move forward through agreement to one viewpoint, and no looking or thinking of other viewpoints.

You are missing the point.

 

I asked if there really was any way evidence would convince you that life is, indeed, a matter of the interaction of atoms. You said no. Without you being open to evidence, there is no point in discussing the subject with you, as you have said you will not listen. It's not a disagreement of point of view at issue, but that you have stated that you will refuse to change your point of view no matter what evidence is presented.

 

Science certainly does not move ahead with that attitude.

 

What evidence? Just show me a scientific explaination or definition that is evidence that life is made of atoms.

 

No evidence has been given, only assumptions, or opinions. I have done research on this topic and I found that science has not come out and said that life is an atomic structure.

This kills me. You reject evidence of the mechanics of life (which is not simple by any means) as "a lesson in chemistry and the physics of these chemicals."

 

 

 

You can resolve this debate by giving evidence of some sort that science says or agrees that life is made of atoms. A website, a definition, something.

Which you have already said you'd reject.

 

I am sure that you think that you are right in your assertion, great. The problem is that I am looking for what science says about this matter and not just what one person thinks. You seem to think that life is some form of atoms, fine, what science backs this up? Is there any?

Yes, there is.

 

Biology is applied chemistry. A very complex, multi-tiered chemistry.

 

Have you ever seen this video of the inner workings of a cell? It demonstrates all manner of chemichal reactions that result in such things as the production of a protein controlled by a strand of RNA, chemical receptors turned on and off, used as rolling anchors for T-cells. The unfolding of proteins after cell-wall adhesion to facilitate a cell-to-cell signal. Incredible complexity, but every bit of it explained by chemistry, in turn explained by physics.

 

 

Do not make assumptions and be quick to judgment. I have raised some questions that cast a doubt on this "life is atomic idea". Can you provide any science that states life is some configuration of atoms? I would like to see it.

You just said, in answer to my question, that no evidence would convince you.

[Sisyphus]

I'd like to inject a point or two' date=' Eric 5, but I have a very important question that needs to be answered first.

 

Is there any evidence what-so-ever that would convince you that life is an emergent property of the interaction of atoms? Please be honest.[/quote']

 

No.

 

Alright then. Thread closed.