Milk, although full of nutrients and the building blocks of life, is not itself alive. But, if left long enough in a glass sitting on a counter in a moderately temparate room, life will form in that glass.
Could this analogy be used as a counter argument to creationism?
2007-05-02 08:33:58 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
I don't think your argument will hold water... err... milk. :o)
The reason milk sitting at room temperature comes alive is because initially there are microbes present. Leaving the milk at room temp gives them a nutrient-rich environment to grow.
Think of canned milk or soup. These are nutrient-rich food products that have had their microbes killed off and are then placed in a sealed environment. They sit at room temperature for years, and only go bad (life becomes present) when the can breaks down and microbes get in.
The argument you are heading toward is: if you have a volume of nutrients with absolutely no life present, and no avenue for external life to enter, will life spontaneously emerge? Or does it need some sort of intervention to initiate life? That is one facet of the debate of creation vs. evolution, and to actually provide a provable answer is waaaay beyond the scope of Yahoo.
2007-05-02 08:53:16 · answer #1 · answered by JeepGuy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, because the life in the glass originated not from the milk, but from some bugs that were ALREADY in the milk. What you speak of is caller spontanious generation, and it has never been observed. Evolutionist argument is that once upon a time it happened--billions of years ago. I however think that is impossible; also, where did the matter in our universe come from, big bang? Where did the energy for the big bang come from??? (in science words, how do you account for the universe's enthalpy?) I believe that the only possible explanation is creation by an inteligent being with infinite power (God).
2007-05-02 15:43:24 · answer #2 · answered by Scooter_MacGyver 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the life that "forms" in that glass didn't spontaneously arise from the building blocks of life that are in the milk. Rather, it already existed, and just reproduced in an area where the conditions were right (e.g. food was available)
2007-05-02 15:42:04 · answer #3 · answered by Tim M 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, because life doe not "spontaneously" arise in the milk. A scientist (Louis Pasteur) proved over a hundred years ago that if the milk is deprived of air, it does not give rise to any living thing. That is why canned milk does not spoil until it is opened.
The milk spoils because bacteria spores that are floating in the air settle into the milk Life only comes from other life, as far as we know.
---------------------edit-----------------
Louis Pasteur - One of the first to disprove spontaneous generation. A French scientist who proved that micro organisms was carried by dust not air. (French 1864)
Spontaneous Generation
The idea that organisms originate directly from nonliving matter. "life from nonlife"
abiogenisis - (a-not bio-life genesis-origin)
2007-05-02 15:41:50 · answer #4 · answered by Randy G 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am not a scientist but a woman's breast milk contains anti-bodies. So isn't it likely that cows milk does too?
2007-05-02 16:23:41 · answer #5 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so, but the link below provides a lot of arguments against...
2007-05-02 15:39:19 · answer #6 · answered by Mark S, JPAA 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
thats a crappy arguement, the life would be formed by living things floating into it
2007-05-02 15:41:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋