Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

a reply to: Randyvine2

Is there a problem with rejecting a morally bankrupt agency who abuses their authority? That's unusual for ATS.

a reply to: darkbake

"In fact, we have evidence to the contrary. Both water and life have been spotted outside of Earth"


And they have 'Proof' of life existing outside of Earth - more than circumstantial evidence, PROOF

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Kreeate

I love this friggen guy.

A supreme being is possible. Your biblical, jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, narcissistic, illogical god is not.

So you will only allow a supreme being to exist if he exists by your moral code?
At least no one can ask who created God any more. Because low and behold
according to you it's you. So your big parade of words is truly indicative to
yourself. You can't be taken seriously passed the first word in any of your
replies. Because your conclusion is delusion and reflect right back on you
without you even realizing it. But if you don't want any help no one can
help you.

lol at your gibberish. I believe a supreme being is possible. My moral code or stance is irrelevant to that. I don't subscribe to fundamentalist religious indoctrination and fearmongering.

If you are unable to successfully defend your religious stance in other threads, don't bring your brainwashed garbage into other people's topics.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Randyvine2

Is there a problem with rejecting a morally bankrupt agency who abuses their authority? That's unusual for ATS.

Please, my retort made no attempt to site a problem with rejecting anything.

Should I not give respect to your powers of comprehension and it explain it again?

Cmon Chaz there's no defending such a claim for the very reason I pointed out.
He's over the top beyond anything I've seen even from you.

This vast mostly unknown universe is full of organic compounds.

[thc]
If the universe was organic it would probably have a much shorter shelf life.
Maybe the organic world needs an inorganic container to exist?

Come to think of it,….plants need water, minerals, co2 and sunlight.
Is water organic?
I know minerals aren't.
Is co2?
Is sunlight?

It looks to me like the organic world has a symbiotic relationship with the inorganic.

[/thc]

This is a GREAT question. My answer for concrete evidence is pretty simple... study the space station finding plankton growing outside of the capsule and bacteria living on inorganic comets where we have routinely found organic life in their tails as well as on them. How it happens is way beyond empirical proof yet. We simply know that it happens routinely. a reply to: AlienView

a reply to: Paschar0

And you the mirror image. At this point you might as well be discussing a sports team.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Kreeate


You have a big problem with the Christian God so what? That's your problem.

You want to know why people reject the idea of the Christian God?

You have children yes?

What would you do if you are instructed by a burning bush to sacrifice your child?


If god was a movie it wouldn't be North by Northwest.

It would be Snakes on a mf plane.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Well God can defend himself just fine so bait rejected.

However you do have enough understanding of scripture to
convolute two different biblical stories so that's impressive.

a reply to: AlienView

Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

Huh ?

How can the universe be inorganic, if it contains organic life ?

An excerpt from "0rganic Chemistry", Morrison and Boyd 3rd edition Copyright June 1980.


"The misleading name organic is a relic of the days when chemical compounds were divided into two classes, inorganic and organic. Inorganic compounds were those obtained from minerals. Organic compounds were considered strictly from animal or plant life until 1850,,,, These compounds from carbon can be formed in a lab"

Carbonates and Cyanide have carbon atoms and are considers inorganic.

So what we have is a definition issue with "organic" and inorganic. My contention is CO2 is made in biological organic processes. The big thing here to not lose sight of in this discussion is that CO2 DOES NOT cause global warming, it might cause the plants to grow like we have never seen if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere. The Earth sequesters Carbon in plants and trees. The ocean life will sequester Carbon in the coral reefs and other similar biological activity such as barnacles. We need not worry over CO2. We should worry about water pollution.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Justoneman

Sorry, but you're wrong:

What Is An Inorganic Carbon Compound?
Based on what you just learned, what is an inorganic carbon compound? Well, it's a compound that is inorganic (it does not have a C-H bond anywhere to be seen) but it does contain carbon nonetheless.

By the old ways in which (in)organic compounds were distinguished, this would make no sense. It either has carbon or it doesn't! But the way the two can be defined today, it is possible for a compound to have carbon yet still be inorganic.

Examples
Some examples of inorganic carbon compounds can be found among the carbonates, compounds that contain the CO3 2- ion

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: 19Bones79

Well God can defend himself just fine so bait rejected.

However you do have enough understanding of scripture to
convolute two different biblical stories so that's impressive.

I don't see him doing anything of the sort. Defending himself would be interacting with the public and giving statements to the press.

As stated previously, this topic is a strawman and a bait thread, misrepresenting life as wizardry that obligates human society to an obsolete agency. Keep your dogecoin psychology and may it bring you good fortune.

originally posted by: Justoneman
An excerpt from "0rganic Chemistry", Morrison and Boyd 3rd edition Copyright June 1980.


"The misleading name organic is a relic of the days when chemical compounds were divided into two classes, inorganic and organic. Inorganic compounds were those obtained from minerals. Organic compounds were considered strictly from animal or plant life until 1850,,,, These compounds from carbon can be formed in a lab"

Carbonates and Cyanide have carbon atoms and are considers inorganic.

So what we have is a definition issue with "organic" and inorganic. My contention is CO2 is made in biological organic processes. The big thing here to not lose sight of in this discussion is that CO2 DOES NOT cause global warming, it might cause the plants to grow like we have never seen if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere. The Earth sequesters Carbon in plants and trees. The ocean life will sequester Carbon in the coral reefs and other similar biological activity such as barnacles. We need not worry over CO2. We should worry about water pollution.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Justoneman

Sorry, but you're wrong:

What Is An Inorganic Carbon Compound?
Based on what you just learned, what is an inorganic carbon compound? Well, it's a compound that is inorganic (it does not have a C-H bond anywhere to be seen) but it does contain carbon nonetheless.

By the old ways in which (in)organic compounds were distinguished, this would make no sense. It either has carbon or it doesn't! But the way the two can be defined today, it is possible for a compound to have carbon yet still be inorganic.

Examples
Some examples of inorganic carbon compounds can be found among the carbonates, compounds that contain the CO3 2- ion

We still use the terms organic and inorganic when appropriate. As I said previously, besides being a convention, it's just a convenience to differentiate between carbon that's in living organisms and carbon that isn't.

Volcanoes spew out millions of tons of gases into the atmosphere every day. I don't see any of the climate activists talking about that. Climate change is inevitable. It's happened in the past and will happen again. The underlying causes are multifactorial, most likely different throughout Earth's history. The contribution of human activity is certainly there, but I don't believe we can just shut down the planet, put people into poverty and expect to survive. All the hot air spent up in Glasgow these last few days would have been better spent endorsing and researching new technologies. That's what Elon Musk is doing - he has a $10M prize for anyone who comes up with a viable solution to clean the atmosphere of CO2 and other toxins. And again, even if there is a viable way to clean up the atmosphere, there's no guarantee that it will affect climate change.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How much it contributes to overall climate change - I don't know - not sure anyone really knows because if they did, they could predict outcomes more accurately than they do now. The geologic record holds a lot of answers about climate change. I'm sure a lot of research is being done there.

If the biblical god exists, why am I still alive? That bearded guy absolutely hated sinners - couldn't abide them at all. He killed them by the thousand. And yet, here I am.

God isn't real, I am.

originally posted by: PurpleSun
This is a GREAT question. My answer for concrete evidence is pretty simple... study the space station finding plankton growing outside of the capsule and bacteria living on inorganic comets where we have routinely found organic life in their tails as well as on them. How it happens is way beyond empirical proof yet. We simply know that it happens routinely. a reply to: AlienView

Does the organic material of comets predate our Solar System?

"The Rosetta space probe discovered a large amount of organic material in the nucleus of comet “Chury.” In an article published by MNRAS on August 31, 2017, two French researchers advance the theory that this matter has its origin in interstellar space and predates the birth of the Solar System.

The ESA's Rosetta mission, which ended in September 2016, found that organic matter made up 40% (by mass) of the nucleus of comet 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko, a.k.a. Chury. Organic compounds, combining carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen, are building blocks of life on Earth. Yet, according to Jean-Loup Bertaux and Rosine Lallement—from Laboratoire Atmosphères, Milieux, Observations Spatiales (CNRS / UPMC / Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines) and the Galaxies, Étoiles, Physique et Instrumentation department of the Paris Observatory (Observatoire de Paris / CNRS / Université Paris Diderot), respectively—these organic molecules were produced in interstellar space, well before the formation of the solar system. Bertaux and Lallement further assert that astronomers are already very familiar with the source of this matter.........."

www.cnrs.fr...


Thanks for bringing this up - Like I said in the OP I was posting this for need to know without any particular agenda.

Now this would of course increase the probability of life forming even by chance
- Still it does not answer the question of what are the odds of a breathing organisam that can reproduce itself and continue to produce genetic variations - As if pre-determined by design

Why do plants and animals grow. Because microbes tell them to. Just need to figure out the agenda of the microbes.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I was simply making the point that I wasn't going to defend God. Sheese mon!

I don't see him doing anything of the sort. Defending himself would be interacting with the public and giving statements to the press.

Maybe what you expect isn't important to him so you won't see him doing anything period.IDK

“Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?”

As an agnostic, I'd say that God may be the answer, but is only one possible answer. Since our current level of science is unable to prove that God is responsible, then we must consider any other possibilities, however unlikely, as potential, if not probable, explanations. I’m using the term “God” here loosely to mean your choice of supernatural beings or entities capable of engendering biological life, as humans recognize it, out of inanimate matter. There’s quite a number of flavors in that God-mix, depending on your culture, ethnicity, or chronological occupation on the anthropogenic time-line. [apologies to ultra-believers]

It is just as likely that humans merely “invented” a “God” or “Gods” throughout history as a way of reconciling their ignorance about the fundamental unanswerable questions in philosophy, namely, “Who am I?”, “Where do we come from?”, “Where do we go upon death?” (Carl Sagan hated that last one).

Anyway – one alternative to the “God” solution for the OP’s query may be that simple chemical compounds, once randomness brings the right circumstances and combinations of elements together, possess an ultra-basic, competitive instinct to survive among it’s myriad peers of other inert, involatile combinations. After millennia pass, infinitesimal mutations strengthen and build upon the self-preservation instinct until increasingly complex combinations approach the faintest whisper of what we may define as “life” – itself an inexact science. How we might define or recognize such a trait may be in simple self-preservation or replications building on the incremental successes after trillions of failed iterations.

Some 13 billion years later – well – here we are…

I’m not sating this is what happened – agnostics admit they do not, CAN NOT know the answer yet. Just a hypothesis – of many possible ones.

Now I have a question for you:

If it all "started" with the “Big Bang” – who put the stuff together to go “bang” in the first place?