Life is not a substance. It isn't "produced". It is just matter in a cycle that causes a configuration to repeat itself. No matter is idle. It is constantly interacting with other matter. This is just another way for it to interact.
If you want to learn how such cycles can spiral into very complex designs, just look into complexity theory. There has been some interesting work done in this area.
2007-01-18 21:43:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by nondescript 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
There are two sides to every issue. There is a truth to both theories, you see. Look at a quarter. When you flip it, to either get a head or a tail right. But neither the head or the tail is the whole quarter... there is silver (or gray--ahem) area in between. The whole quarter is head and tail, and gray area. The plants either produce seeds or they dont, but the neither the capability to produce a seed, or incapability are the product of the essence of a plant's life story. We do have a choice to accept to be good or to be bad... but this choice is not who we are... we are more than our choices, our choices are byproducts of who we are at the moment, what we have learned and experienced, and our attempts to be something more whether the choice is wise or unwise, is irrelevent. Once we make a choice, we move into a new existence, due to whatever effect was caused by our action or inaction, and then we are continually faced with a new series of choices to make, in result to our change in circumstance, and change in circumstance is always present, never faltering. She is correct to state that vandalism is either allowed or not, because she is looking at the external component of reality, whereas the gray area you are referring to is an internal component. A person keen on the gray area will want to know why the need for vandalism was present in the first place, rather than whether or not vandalism is enforced. You see, if we could eliminate the need between the two choices of vandalism or no vandilism, by structurally applying a system where vandalism was unneccessary, we will have safely tackled the problem in the realm of what is seen as a gray area. A person in the gray area understands that in certain cases vandalism may be seen as necessary in order to protect ones'self, wheras the other points out the societal restriction. Yet, they are also part of the problem, because rather than eliminating the need to vandalize, they simply state not to do so, but the need or at the very least, the desire to vandalize still remain, and the problem is not cured.
2016-05-24 06:23:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
By logic and hi-tech, the dead minerals of this world is used to build sophisticated aircrafts and rockets. It is not blind accidents, but carefully formulated accidents, like builders used to blast mountaineous terrain to develop modern skyscrapers. By the process of re-cycle dead matter will be used to produce the most sophisticated intelligent wonders.
2007-01-18 21:47:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by wizard of the East 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Through chemical reaction the basic processes of life can arrise. While only the very basic building blocks of living matter have been reproduced in the lab, I see no reason that over several million years those basic blocks couldn't develop into more complex molecules and proteins.
2007-01-18 22:01:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I refuse to believe in Creationism, because it is demeaning to God. There is so much redundancy in genes of animals, redundant features and so forth that it proves that God is a complete moron. Seeing as God is supposed to be intelligent, Evolution must have created all life on Earth.
2007-01-19 01:01:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Chris W 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Science has never been able to explain the supposed evolution of dead matter into living matter. Even the top evolutionists will admit they can only guess at this.
2007-01-18 21:53:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by mark g 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The same way a filthy body cluttered with sin can be dipped in the red blood of Jesus and come out white as snow.
Its the Lords Chemical Laboratory of Paramountcy
2007-01-18 21:46:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by $G$ 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclusions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occurred.
2007-01-18 21:45:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Darktania 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
Dead matter cannot produce life. Life can come only from life.
Can someone produce life by mixing some chemicals?
2007-01-18 21:51:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by S D 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Are you an advocate for invocation or 'God'... self-manifestation?
The Natural World is an incredible thing, isn't it?
2007-01-18 21:49:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by Invisible_Flags 6
·
0⤊
0⤋