The old God question

[GUNWOUNDS]

I don`t think we have a free will or our life is written. That thing about the time travel is right.We are writting our life now.

There's no God, but there's a Creator of life in the Earth (or maybe there's no creator),

[Procyon]

I don't thing that "somebody" created atoms. How can a being exist before the Big Bang? Before Big Bang, there was no time.

Probably its an endless chain, our gods were created by a superior god, and we in the future we will create life.

Everyone believes in his own crap. That has always been happening.

Anyway, if there`s a God, is not allmighty and inmortal.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I don't thing that "somebody" created atoms. How can a being exist before the Big Bang? Before Big Bang, there was no time.

Probably its an endless chain, our gods were created by a superior god, and we in the future we will create life.

Everyone believes in his own crap. That has always been happening.

Anyway, if there`s a God, is not allmighty and inmortal.

[nemafakei]

Procyon, either I don't understand what you're saying or your arguments are wholly contradictory.

If, as you suggest, life here was planted by another race, we still have the problem of where this race came from, all the way back to the Big Bang... please tell me how this works, if at all?!

And how does an endless chain

"Also i might add that you said the "adam", "magic" ,  and the "angels" are all  "crap" ... but your visions of "infiltrating aliens" and "UFO's" zooming around are just as fantastical or "crap" as you like to call it."

I'm afraid that without some evidence, I must second gunwounds... you're certainly as much into Pink Unicorn land as what you denounce.

[Dante]

Also you said we might one day "create life"  ... that is misleading because life is already created. Thats like saying one day i will create a pencil.  You arent creating it... you are just copying or replicating it.  And that doesnt make you a true creator, that makes you a copier or a replicator.  There is a reason why Xerox is called a copying machine and not a creator machine.

Us creating life is not as crazy as it sounds. And I do literally mean a new form of life, though it does still require atoms and time (as a biologist, Gunwounds, you might find this interesting).

It's a theory I haven't worked on much, but so far it's reasonably workable. But since it's only a theory that I haven't looked up or researched, who knows? Anyway, the idea is that humans have already created life in the form of the virus. Not the biological virus, the computer virus. Here's the reasoning:

The characteristics an organism is supposed to have for it to be considered 'alive,' are such things as ability to reproduce, take in energy, excrete, respirate, etc. But biological viruses to not perform all of these things. They do not breathe, they technically do not each or digest. But they do reproduce. And they have DNA (or RNA). And since the very core of life as we know it (mammels, birds, bacteria, plants, fungi, reptiles, etc) is the molecule that self-replicates (DNA, for those of you who need a little help), then surely viruses must be considered alive?

They reproduce. More importantly, they self replicate without outside interference. And this is exactly what a computer virus does. And it does not need a command, as such. Once the process is started it will continue to self replicate as long as there is raw material and the virus is not 'killed.' This is, in every respect, the same as a biological virus. Biological viruses are limited to certain enviroments, so are computer viruses.

The theory depends on a central argument that self replication = life.

Thus in theory, if a computer could be programmed to build more computers exactly like it (which would in turn produce more identical computers) then it would, technically, be alive. Of limited intelligence maybe, but alive. Not so crazy when you consider the intelligence of your average cold virus.

Anyway, that's my theory for creation of life by humans. I say 'my,' theory, because I haven't yet come across another version of it.

"Also i might add that you said the "adam", "magic" ,  and the "angels" are all  "crap" ... but your visions of "infiltrating aliens" and "UFO's" zooming around are just as fantastical or "crap" as you like to call it."

I'm afraid that without some evidence, I must second gunwounds... you're certainly as much into Pink Unicorn land as what you denounce.

'Fraid so. Unless you can prove it, aliens would be just as fictious as god.

Probably life was seed in our planet by a "Creator", because the lapse between the Earth's formation and the origin of life is just 1600 millions of years, is very short time. The Earth was formed 4600 millions years ago and life 3000 years ago.  1600 millions of years is a very short time for the creation of aminoacids, then proteins and later procariont cells.

So I think the Creator seeded our Earth with aminoacids (probably the creator was carbon-based and had the same aminoacids and proteins) or  primitive procariontic life. If there's no creator, then life came via Panspermia, or the aminoacids came from a meteorite.

One thousand six hundred million years? In two million years we progressed from the romans to modern civilisation. It took only sixty five million years from the extinction of the dinosaurs for us to reach this level. And you think one thousand six hundred million years is too short a time for amino acids to develop? Meteorite is possible, but it would have been done by a lightning strike. You know if you pass electricity through a mixture of elements that would have been around at the time you get fragmentory DNA? It only needed to happen once, and how many times can lightning strike in 1600,000,000 years?

About the Guardian. You can define it as Yahv

[GUNWOUNDS]

then surely viruses must be considered alive?

that is still debated by many scientists....

[Dante]

Depends on the gas. I can't think of any non-organic substance that would behave like that, and if it were organic then it would be alive.

Regarding the the belief that viruses were originally bacterial weapons... Possible, but not necessarily. The bacteria probably evolved these defences in order to render protection against viruses, but this does not necessarily mean that the viruses also came from other bacteria. Do any modern bacteria produce viral weapons? Are there any evolutionary leftovers that bacteria once produced viral DNA?

Even if the viruses were once bacterial weapons, that does not mean that they are machines. They could still be alive, no matter what their origins.

I think that viruses developed on their own, as perhaps the most basic form of life. Life as we know it (even excluding viruses) can already break its own rules. There are becteria that die in the presence of oxygen, fish that live in lightless and almost oxygenless seawater, worms that can only survive in or near volcanic vents, etc. If these things can be considered alive when they survive such harsh conditions, then a virus should not be considered 'un-alive,' because it too can survive harsh conditions (I refer to the crystalline survival).

I think the argument regarding DNA works both ways. If it (the only molecule that self-replicates) is not 'alive,' itself, which makes sense since it's all carbon, hydrogren, phosphorus, yadda yadda, then what is it that makes us alive? If DNA does not intrinsically hold the key to being alive, then we are not alive. If it does, then viruses are alive. I personally subscribe to the latter approach, though perhaps only because I haven't fully examined the former.

[nemafakei]

Why does it have to be organic (I'm assuming you mean based on Carbon-Carbon bonds)?

[Dante]

Organic in the biological rather than the chemical sense.

[nemafakei]

Ok, what do you mean by that?

More specifically: what's the difference between organic and living?

"Depends on the gas. I can't think of any non-organic substance that would behave like that, and if it were organic then it would be alive."

I'm assuming you're not adding tautologously redundant sentences for the sake of it.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Depends on the gas. I can't think of any non-organic substance that would behave like that, and if it were organic then it would be alive.

Regarding the the belief that viruses were originally bacterial weapons... Possible, but not necessarily. The bacteria probably evolved these defences in order to render protection against viruses, but this does not necessarily mean that the viruses also came from other bacteria. Do any modern bacteria produce viral weapons? Are there any evolutionary leftovers that bacteria once produced viral DNA?

Even if the viruses were once bacterial weapons, that does not mean that they are machines. They could still be alive, no matter what their origins.

I think that viruses developed on their own, as perhaps the most basic form of life. Life as we know it (even excluding viruses) can already break its own rules. There are becteria that die in the presence of oxygen, fish that live in lightless and almost oxygenless seawater, worms that can only survive in or near volcanic vents, etc. If these things can be considered alive when they survive such harsh conditions, then a virus should not be considered 'un-alive,' because it too can survive harsh conditions (I refer to the crystalline survival).

I think the argument regarding DNA works both ways. If it (the only molecule that self-replicates) is not 'alive,' itself, which makes sense since it's all carbon, hydrogren, phosphorus, yadda yadda, then what is it that makes us alive? If DNA does not intrinsically hold the key to being alive, then we are not alive. If it does, then viruses are alive. I personally subscribe to the latter approach, though perhaps only because I haven't fully examined the former.

The viral DNA or RNA that can survive inside its capsule in a crystalline state for thousands of years is somewhat different from the

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why does it have to be organic (I'm assuming you mean based on Carbon-Carbon bonds)?

Organic in the biological rather than the chemical sense.

Ok, what do you mean by that?

More specifically: what's the difference between organic and living?

Nema i think Dante made an honest mistake in confusing some terms.

Dante,

[nemafakei]

Perhaps. I'm just questioning to provoke a definition so we all know what we're all talking about. Including, if necessary, Dante's reevaluation of his words. Slight confusion is a fair possiblity.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I get what Dante is saying tho... he is basically saying that DNA is so vital that it is the core component of life.

Its not really life itself.. it is just the "core" component.

[Dante]

Nema i think Dante made an honest mistake in confusing some terms.

Dante,

[GUNWOUNDS]

hmm first form of dependant life (or parasite) is interesting...

But for me it just make sense to think about our inanimate parts as an (engine/gear/blueprint/cookbook/etc)

You say self replication = life

perhaps a better phrase would be

[Acriku]

What merit would calling DNA life give it? Whether or not we slap the word life on things like DNA or comets, they will still function the same as before.

[nemafakei]

I'm more intrigued by the question of whether there is a finite boundary you can draw, and if indeed there's any real difference between what is life and what isn't.

I think the comet analogy/suggestion is different because whereas a virus reconfigures other elements to replicate itself, a comet's 'procreation' consists of a simple displacement of matter.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I'm more intrigued by the question of whether there is a finite boundary you can draw, and if indeed there's any real difference between what is life and what isn't.

I think the comet analogy/suggestion is different because whereas a virus reconfigures other elements to replicate itself, a comet's 'procreation' consists of a simple displacement of matter.

true the DNA replicate is a bit more elegant. But as you previously commented.. "is there a finite line we can draw?"