Eric 5

Alright, I have seen examples like this given to explain the distortion of spacetime. In all examples with the trampoline or stretched rubber what is required is gravity and a material that has it's edges secured so they will not move. Also in these examples an object is actually in contact with some material. Spacetime has no scientific data that states that it is a physical thing existing in a location. On and on the dialogue goes regarding spacetime as though this thing actually exists, yet no one has ever discribed spacetime as a physical thing. Spacetime is a mathematical construct. No mention anywhere that spacetime is a physical thing. Everyone who speaks of it in terms of being a thing that exists in a location has not actually looked to see if this thing is an actual entity. Anyone willing to do some research and find out for yourself?

A stretching of what? Can you give more data on what you want to communicate.

I would like to hear what you have been writting on time. I do not think time is a physical thing. I say that the concept of time is only a manifestation of particles moving in space. Also, when it comes to the idea of dimensions. Do you think that dimensions are a real physical things?

You want to clear this up and understand this time dilation/lenght contraction stuff? Answer these questions: Is time a physical energy? If you say that it is, please provide scientific evidence or a definition. In this lenght contaction idea, can you find any reference that states that the object actually contracts? You have two objects, one is made of iron, the other is made of foam padding. Both objects are traveling at near the speed of light. Both we are told contract at to the same lenght. It takes more energy to contract iron then foam, yet both contract the same. How is this possible? What forces are at worK? If you say that the objects APPEAR to contract you would be correct according to Einstein and S.R. They appear to contract, but acctually do not contract. There is no science that explains the forces that act on an object to contract it during high speed. Force is not mentioned. The objects do not actually contract. Just think about it, if an object were contracted by some force, what is the force that brings it back to it original lenght? And why is this force never mentioned?

Do clocks meaure a physical influence or energy that is motivating the clock? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Again. What do clocks measure? Look at how a clock works. Do clocks actually measure some energy called time? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged SWANSONT. Please provide scientific evidence of the mechanical workings of a clock that shows clocks measure some external energy or influence? This talk of time being some type of thing is not based in science. Look at the references concerning clocks or time and you will see that time is not a physical thing that exists as some form of enegy that can influence a machine such as a clock.

Just to be clear. When you say we see only three dimensions, do you mean that light is being reflected off these dimensions so that the light percieving organs (known as eyes) can "see" dimensions? What do you mean see? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is all about a mathmatical model. Not physical reality. Nothing in what you said describes a real physical thing. I only point this out so no one thinks that dimensions are a real physical entity. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged not real things. Just imagination. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged BOB. Is time a physical thing as defined by physics or any science?

I am going to help you out here swansont. What asprung means by "physical" is what is defined in any standard dictionary. Correct me if I am wrong, asprung. Physical means physical as defined by any dictionary. Swansont, are you going to take the stand that there is a physical contraction? YES/NO.

"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 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. 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 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. 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? 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. 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.

No.

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 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 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.

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. 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. Those that believe that life is some type of atomic structure would just have to provide scientific evidence that backs up that claim. My statement that life is NOT made of atoms is proven by the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary. 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. So, yes you do need to prove your case. Why not just prove your point instead of avoiding the question. I would like to point out that no one has provided any evidence that life is an atomic structure, despite my many requests for this evidence. Is there anyone here who that belives life is made of atoms show any proof of this? It is time to put up some data that proves life is an atomic structure. As it stands right now I have not been shown that I am wrong.

We are discussing atoms becoming alive. Just show the science. What kind of science is this? You say life is made of atoms. What is the chemical formula of life. Please just give the science. COME ON MAN! Just keep this simple. Where is the science? According to that logic everything in this universe is alive. Look, just show the chemical formula of life and stop assuming. If you say life is made of atoms and this is a science forum then where is the science that backs up your claim? This is so simple. Why has no one just provided the science? Have you noticed that no one has provided any scientific evidence that life is made of atoms? So what started this cellular respiration? What causes a group of atoms to decide that in order to survive it must have cellular respiration? There is a group of atoms and then through some supernatural phenomenon it becomes necessary for this group of atoms to exhibit and depend on cellular respiration. Yes living systems exhibit cellular respiration. What is the science behind this? What would cause a group of atoms to construct some system of interacting with O2, yet some groups of atoms do not make this step? What is the force of energy that gives the impulse to a group of atoms to make them dependent on cellular respiration? Why would a group of atoms which are not dependent on respiration decide to now be dependent upon respiration? Seems a bit far fetch as far as science is concerned. So according to your logic, a group of non living atoms decide that they need to have respiration in order to live, yet they were not alive before this decision. This is a science forum. I have asked for the science to provide evidence that life is made of atoms. No one has provided empirical scientific evidence. You and others are making this more complicated then need be. Just show the evidence. Where is your proof? I raise some simple questions and you find it Herculean. You find this to be hard and too big to handle because you are having a hard time propping up your belief that life is made of atoms. Yet you could make this so simple by providing scientific evidence. Your lack of evidence strengthens my case. I ask for scientific evidence and none is given. Just look at how this strengthens my case. I say that there is no scientific evidence that says atoms or a group of atoms are alive, no one has provided any evidence, yet they think that by ignoring me or saying that I am being Herculean is some kind of proof that they are right. REALLY! Where is the science? Why the lack of science? You say life is made of atoms, where does science say this? You are going to have to realize that you know that there is no science to back up your claims. You might as well just admit it and say that your idea that life is made of atoms is based on faith. FAITH: A belief in something as true without having complete evidence or understanding. Show the evidence or understanding.

Where is the scientific evidence that empirically gives the chemical formula that life is made of just atoms? Where is the science? I say life is not made of atoms because there is no science to be found that backs up your assertion that life is 100% atomic. I say that life is not made of atoms due to lack of evidence. You say that life is made of pure atoms, so the burden of proof is on you. Ignoring the question is a cop out. Just prove your case with science and do not take some childish “I will ignore you” approach. Just give your evidence. Prove your case and show the chemical formula of life. Show the observation that life has been recreated in the lab. Stop avoiding the obvious and just prove your case. Where is the science that backs up your claim? You say life is made of atoms. What atoms? How many? In what ratio? COME ON! State your case with science. You say that you are going to be unresponsive unless I come up with evidence to the contray. The evidence is right in front of your face. There is no science that provides evidence that life is made of 100% atoms. I say life is not made of atoms because there is no science to prove this. You say that life is made of atoms. Where is your proof? Go ahead, prove me wrong. Put my credibility into question. As it stands right now you need to prove your case. My viewpoint is proven by lack of evidence. Prove me wrong, be scientific and show the chemical formula for life. Your attitude that ignoring me is childish and unscientific. Man up and just prove your point, don’t runaway and hope that your faith in spontaneous life from atoms is true. Your current actions and attitude do not help your case. Blow me out of the water and provide the science. I have stated before that I will drop this topic if anyone can just do their research and provide evidence that life is made of atoms. Atoms make matter, matter is not life. Just follow the rules of the forum and provide science that backs up your claims. I have asked many people on this "science" forum to back up their claims that time is a physical thing, that space is a physical thing and now life is a physical thing. There HAS NOT been one shred of science given to back up these claims. I have not taken some fantastic, unscientific viewpoint here in my claim that space, time and life are not physical things. Science has no reference or definition that states how these things are made of atoms or some type of E/M wave. I am on the side of science and NOT one person has proved me wrong, NOT ONE! If you want to say that I am wrong about this life thing then just provide the science. So far it seems as though when it comes to the basics of all science and physics such as: What is time? What is space? What is life? Those people who engage me in these topics give their OPINIONS and BELIEFS, not science. They have some faith that what they think is true is actual science. Wrong! Keep this simple. Provide science. Here is the observable train of thought used by those who engage me on the basics of science. They do not provide any science to prove their point. If we just look at this topic of life you can see that no one has provided the science that I have asked for. There is the opinion that life is made of atoms but where is the science? WHERE IS THE SCIENCE THAT BACKS UP YOUR STATEMENT? Science. Science. Science. Is that asking too much? Those who engage me on the above topics use faith and belief to try and prove their point. Why not show how I am wrong and provide scientific evidence? TO HAVE FAITH: The obedience to, acceptance of or belief in something as true WITHOUT HAVING COMPLETE EVIDENCE; UNDERSTANDING OF, or trust in something. So you say that life is made of 100% atoms. Where is the complete evidence? What is your understanding? Just explain your point of view. Start with maybe the type of atoms involved. Then maybe the amount. Then maybe the combination. Can you provide any of this? Why all this run around on a science forum? Who will take the challenge and prove their case and show that my assertion that life is not made of atoms is wrong? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Living systems are made out of atoms, so you say. Cars are made out of atoms and are not alive. Te car is made of non living atoms. Gather a bunch of these atoms and what you have is a non living structure. What is your point? You just said that if you put atoms together you get a non living structure. JUST GIVE THE SCIENTIFIC CHEMICAL FORMULA OF LIFE. WRONG! A thermostat does is not aware of its environment. A thermostat is a man made machine. A thermostat does not decide or perform an activity in order to better its survival. Those structures that have the added ingredient of life will perform actions to help them in survival. A living thing performs actions because it is in someway aware of what is a survival action and where non survival or pain is. Not only that but thermostats do not die.

Wow! Someone actually asked me what I think on this subject. Here is the point that I am trying to make, suppose that I do not have any idea what life is. Suppose that I am not a believer (as in those who believe that there is a God in the sky). Suppose that I have found that everything up to this point can be described by 100% science. Now with all that in mind, what is the scientific evidence that states life is a bunch of atoms? If science knows the exact operation of how atoms become alive then they could recreate life at will. Science cannot do this and science does not understand what makes life. So life is a mystery or unsolved question as far as science is concerned, so anyone who states that life is a bunch of atoms is not working from the viewpoint of science. So my questioning of anyone regarding this topic is not to invalidate them but to get them to think. What is life? That is the question. If it is a bunch of atoms then where is the evidence and the experiments that show man can create life from 100% atoms. That’s all. I just want to have a discussion on this topic yet I find that those who think life is a bunch of atoms cannot provide any scientific evidence. Lets just talk, look at this question anew. I say that there has to be something other then just pure atoms that make life, I was hoping that someone here would be willing to discuss this topic with an open mind. There has to be some kind of energy or force or whatever you want to call it that makes life or is life. Forget all that religious stuff. Can you state with confidence that life is made of a group of atoms?. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged These are good questions. The whole point here is that I may not know what life is. But scientifically speaking, life is not a bunch of atoms. Yes there are many forms of matter that exhibit life. But those forms remain the same atomically whether they are dead or alive. There is no difference. Look, you guys keep talking of computers to make some connection that it has something to do with atoms becoming alive. There are many different rocks, glass, cars, planes, boats, guns, ink, on and on. Computers are made from matter and energy. Computers are not alive. The construction of computers has no bearing on how atoms become alive. Look at this question from a scientific viewpoint. Is one atom alive? Y/N If yes then where is the evidence? If no then are two atoms alive? Is there a magic number of atoms to make the whole group alive? Y/N If two or more atoms have the ability to become alive then, is there any evidence of this? Y/N If yes, then where is it? If no, then what data are you working from in order to state that life is made of atoms? This is so easy to boil down. Is life 100% atoms? Y/N If yes then where is then scientific explanation? If no, then lets look into this further? This is what I am looking to do, look a bit further. It has been said through out the ages by many philosophers that man is composed of body, mind and spirit. Can we currently describe what a body is? Y/N. I say yes. Can we currently describe what a mind is? Y/N. I say that science, philosophy, the humanities are still unsure. This area needs more research. Can we currently describe what a spirit is? Y/N. HA, HA. This topic is very undefined as far as todays science or religion is concerned. Look there either is a soul, spirt, or not. You would think that if there was a soul we would know all about it or at least know that it exists, right? Well apparently we can not say that there is a soul. Yet we cannot rule out the fact that there is something in this universe that provides life or is life, that divides the non living from the living. It cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there could be a something that we could call a soul or spirit. This brings us to the question: Is life 100% atoms or is there more to this? I say that there is more. What that more is, is what I would like to discuss. Just take a look at the laws of motion. These laws have no exception. A body at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force. Take your right hand and decide to place it on a flat surface. Keep your right hand on the surface and hold it still. Once you have decided that you have kept your hand still, move your right hand off the flat surface. Now I will ask you, what moved your hand (that mass)? You might say that it was electro-chemical reactions in your brain. What started these electro-chemical reactions? You see, there was a moment in time before you decided to move your hand. That right hand was located in a particular position in space. Then you decided to move that mass. Did chemicals, atoms decide to move the right hand? When your right hand is resting on the flat surface and you have decided that it is at rest (still) then you moved that right hand, that mass was at rest and then it was in motion. A body at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force. What is this outside force? Chemicals? Atoms? Fine, If that is what you think then what moved those atoms or chemicals? What gave the impetus to initiate the motion of these atoms, electrons? Did the atoms, electrons decide to move? All matter and energy in this physical universe are at effect. There is no incident of any piece of matter or energy deciding to go against the laws of nature. All matter and energy change course or existing state through an influence by an outside force. On the moving of the right hand example, go ahead and work out how that hand moved. If you end up with some concept that this atom, chemical, electron did such and such, well go one step further and figure out what initiated this activity. Yes the human body has a nervous system, this system is a path way for electrical impulses to travel. This system does not initiate electrical impulses. The brain is part of this system, just flesh, just atoms and electrons. What is the initial impulse that starts the whole action of the motion of a right hand that was at rest? This gets at the heart of what is life. What do you think? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have been referred to this game before. Here I go again. We can agree that we are having a discussion on life and what makes life. This game has no connection or provides any logical evidence of how life got started or what makes life. First, life came before this game, the game was created by life in a mathematical form as a game, it is not scientific evidence of how life got started or what life is. Second, this game already starts out with blocks that are alive. The game already has life in it. It does not start out with complete non-living blocks and then show how these blocks become alive. This is just a game and is not used as evidence to support how life got started or what life is. The game is not alive, it is mathematical entertainment. All actions of this game have been predetermined by man. The game does not decide to do anything nor does it have any concept of what it is doing. I could go on and on about this game, but the last time I did on another forum someone got offended and I was banned for three days. I can only hope that you are better than that. I have already earned an infraction on this forum for the communication I have stated regarding my thoughts on this topic. Hey, if you can’t win an argument or provide scientific evidence why not use infractions and threats to prove your point. This of course is not aimed at you, I just thought that it was a bit unjust.

Not reasonable? This is science. Science is exact. If you think that life is a bunch if atoms then just tell me where you got this idea. Did you make it up? Or is it a scientific fact? Fact or opinion? Which is it? Are you serious? You are saying that there is no universal definition of life. WOW! So what are the definitions of life in all the standard scientific dictionaries, just made up private definitions? There are standard universal definitions of life. If life is a bunch of atoms show the scientific evidence or at least where you are getting this idea. Can you logically describe how atoms become alive. Just provide that and then we can go from there. You telling me that a bunch of atoms become alive is not scientific evidence. You say atoms can become alive, great, so how did you come to this conclusion? No, I am not looking for an example. Where is the science? You say it is so. Is that fact or opinion? FACT? If so then please provide evidence. OPINION? I really do not mean to be rude here, but you do not know what you are saying. In fact you have shown that you are either truly ignorant or are careless with your statements. THERE IS AN EXACT FORMULA TO MAKE A WORKING COMPUTER. Man makes computers everyday. Man knows exactly how to make a computer. Every part of a computer can be exactly identified and described exactly by science. Computers are made of matter and are non living. Trying to prove your point regarding life is made from atoms by making some comparison about computers is like trying to prove life is made of atoms by talking about rocks or plastic or spark plugs or TVs. Stick to the subject. Does science provide evidence that atoms are alive or a group of atoms become alive? Y/N. Stop with your comparisons. Where is the science that shows atoms are alive or that a group of atoms become alive. I am a scientific purist, 100% science is the only acceptable answer. If you want to discuss how you THINK atoms become alive, well that is fine, just state that this is your opinion and has no basis in science. If you know of science that states empirically that a group of atoms become alive, then just provide the evidence. This is so simple I just don’t see why people continue to state their opinion when there is science to back up their point. There is science that states atoms become alive right?

Originally Posted by Eric 5 If life is made of a specific quantity of certain atoms in an exact quantity, then that would be covered by chemistry. So what is the chemistry of life, if it is 100% atoms? If you think that life is 100% atoms, then what are the specifics? What type of atoms? In what arrangement? Again what is the chemistry? Your answer of Biochemistry means nothing when it comes to giving an exact scientific answer to what the atomic structure of life is. If you think that life is 100% atomic, where is the science? Originally Posted by Eric 5 2. I say if one atomic particle is not alive then two are not alive, three are not alive and so on. Grouping atomic particles together does not make them spontaneously come alive. We are discussing life not what a group of people are called. Does your crowd example actually make sense to you as proof that a group of atoms became alive? You need to answer the question of how a group of atoms become alive, not what constitutes a crowd. We are not discussing crowds. Just to help you out here look at this. You seem to think that a group of atoms become alive just as a group of people become a crowd. What kind of nonsense is this? Does your logic proves that atoms spontaneously come alive because a group of whales is called a pod, a group of lions is called a pride, a group of crows is called a murder. Wow your logic and proof is stunning! It all makes sense now. Atoms become alive because a group of people are called a crowd. Next helpful hint for you. We are discussing life and atoms. In your crowd example, the crowd is made of living people. You take one living person and add another living person and another and soon you will have a group of living people. Your example starts with life already. No evidence that a non living atom becomes alive. Where is your science? Where is the logic? Where is the proof? Prove it! What science backs you up? Is that the magic number to make atoms alive? Please just stick to science and think about what you are saying before you post your answers. I will agree with you that it is a fact that one atom is not alive. Where are the facts that say more than one atom will become alive? Lets just make this simple. You think that atoms can become alive. I disagree. Just blow me out of the water and provide the science that backs you up. You surely are not just making stuff up just to try and prove your point, right? You base all of your answers and conclusions on pure science, Right? So just give the science that you are operating off of that brought you to the conclusion that atoms can become alive when grouped together. Just give the type of atoms that are involved. Then we can work forward from there as to the number and arrangement. See how simple this is. I am just following the rules of the forum by asking for some science to back up your point. Why not use this forum as an opportunity to re-examine your data regarding this atoms become alive viewpoint and just use my questioning to help you shake loose some false data and firm up your knowledge of scientific data regarding this subject. You see, both of us can not be right. One of us needs a bit of science to clear things up and get on the right path. If I am wrong then science will bear that out and I will have a better understanding of this topic. The same goes for you. I have not seen any science that provides evidence that non-living atoms become alive. And so far after communicating with some on this forum who disagree with my statement that atoms do not become alive, I have still not been shown any science that provides evidence to show that I am mistaken. I am asking for your help, I would like to get this question resolved, can you provide any science that would help out here? You have the idea that atoms can become alive, how did you come to this conclusion? What science are you operating from? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So if atoms interact long enough with each other they may become alive? Is that what you are alluding to? Who is this WE? The definition that you provided for life is not in agreement with any standard dictionary, scientific or otherwise. Look you give an incorrect definition of life and then from there build your case that life can be made of 100% atoms. You may be building a case that supports your definition of life, but that definition is incorrect so you are going in the wrong direction. Look, even you say that it is wrong to say atoms are alive. Arrangements of atoms is just that, arrangment of atoms. If you have data that gives the recipe for making life or changes the non-living into the living, please share this data. A living organism does have a special status, it is alive. Somehow this form that is made of atoms is alive. There are many forms made from atoms that are not alive. So there is a huge difference. Living organisms strive to continue to survive. Do all atomic structures strive to survive? No. Do all atomic structures reconstruct matter and reorganize it so that it can continue to function? No. Some atomic structures have this ability and some don't, What is this thing that is present that gives some forms the ability to change things in it's environment in the direction of continued survival? You have to agree that not all forms have the ability or desire to reconstruct and reorganize matter in it's favor. What is this force that is present that gives life, desire, urge to survive? No. But that atom is also not alive. What is required to have a non-living atom make the jump from non-living to living? That is the question. Alright. But it is still matter. Lets get one thing straight here. Do you agree that there are forms of matter that are not alive, and there are forms of matter that are alive? We can both agree on what matter is made from. This is not in question. What happens, what is added, what is the difference between the living and the non-living? This is what I am looking to resolve. Is it all dependent on the quantity of atoms? If so, then what is that quantity and what process takes place to make a group of atoms alive. No, my argument is that atoms are not alive according to any standard definition. My definition of alive is the same as those definitions of alive that biology is using. I am in agreement with biology when it comes to the definition of alive. There is no science that claims that atoms are alive. To tell you the truth, I do not recall giving a definition of life or alive on this forum. So what do you mean by "definitions all you have is opinion" What definitions? Here is the thing, I will agree with you that it may seem that life is made of 100% atoms. With the current education regarding life, we are lacking much. There are too many doubts and contradictions. It seems that those involved in finding the answers to life want to have it both ways. One hand science says that atoms are not alive, science says you cannot get something from nothing. Science demands exactness and specifics. When it comes to the subject of life science wants us to believe that atoms become alive, yet they do not show how this happens. If science wants to make a claim then show the science behind it. Yet on the other hand science says you cannot get something from nothing, yet it wants us to believe that a non-living thing becomes alive magically. There is no scientific explanation of this process, yet science says that this is the way life came about. From non-living to living just like that. throw the "right" chemicals around in the "right" quantity and poof! You got life. Fine, So what are these "right" chemicals and what is this "right" quantity. Do you see where I am coming from? Science has not used science to back up the claim that atoms become alive. We just need to believe them because they say so. Well, I do not believe in science, science is an exact empirical field of study that can prove it's claims through testing, observation, or mathematical equations. So where is any of this when it comes to life? Do you know? Or are you happy just to just believe what you are told and not question anything? Those who are happy to just go with the flow when it comes to science are missing the point. The fun, excitement, drive behind science is to question everything and be skeptical until proven otherwise. Science is a journey and exploration, what good is it to go exploring by following in someone else’s foot steps or just explore where you are told. Think for yourself if you can be so bold. Do you have any established science that proves empirically that life is just a group of atoms?

[ Which came first? The atom or the living system? Alright, excuse me for being specific, but this is a science form, which part of the atom is alive? Do all of the parts of an atom come together in a specific form and become alive? Look, atoms are either alive or not. A finger that is part of a living system will die when other living things interact with it, such as gangrene. Atoms do make the structure of a living form. But they also make the structure of non living and previously living forms. You see the system already has to BE ALIVE before the atoms are added to or become a part of that system. According to what you said atoms arealive when they are part of a living system, what gave this system its kick start? The addition of atoms? Do you add atoms to a non living system and then that system and the atoms become alive? A living system is 100% atoms? If so how did the atoms in the first living system become alive? This gets at the basic question of how did life start. If it is necessary to have a living system for the atoms to be a part of, and if all life is made of atoms, then was there always life and living things, or did an atom, electron, proton, etc become alive so as to make a living system. You see, in order for your above statement to be true, living things had to exist forever, or an atomic particle became alive. There is this huge jump from non living to living. If atoms are alive then they could start their own living systems. If atoms are not alive then they can only become alive after they become a part of a living system. That is a nice thing to mentally chew on. [ I agree, consciousness is a function of advanced life forms. All living things are aware of their environment. More advanced life forms have more advanced awareness. All living things are aware to some degree. [ In plain English this means what? I am not saying “you” or ”I” of consciousness. Consciousness is a description of a level of awareness of a living thing. Not all things that are aware have brains. There is your body, your organs, your thoughts and such. These things are possessed by or made by something that has the concept of not being these things but being a part of these things. This idea of “I” refers to the awareness of something that it is a distinct thing that is different from other things. This “I” has the concept that it is an individual separate thing from other things. What is your take on the idea that man is made of a body, mind and spirit? [ Consciousness is a function of LIVING THINGS. Consciousness does not come before life. Non living things do not become conscious and then become alive. Computers would have to be alive before then are conscious. [ So is all matter. If a living system were entirely physical then it would be matter. There would be no difference at the sub-atomic level between the living and the non living. This is not the case, so what is that thing that separates those things that are alive and those things that are not? [ Sounds like you have been exposed to the theory of Biocentrism. Is that what you are getting at here? [ First of all, the actions of this computer are for the benefit of who? Would it be aware that it is doing all of this stuff a brain could do? A living person made a computer to act according to how man thinks a brain works. Man will say the computer is acting like a brain, the computer will not have any idea that it is acting like a brain. Man makes a machine to do a specific function and that machine then does that function. The computer would just be programmed to act like a brain. Just like it is programmed to do other things that do not make it aware, or conscious. Again, only living things are aware of their surroundings, living things have a need to be aware of their surroundings because they want to continue to live and want to avoid non survival elements in their environment. All living things are aware of where the survival things are and will move toward these survival thing or do survival actions in order to live. All living things will move away from or perform action to avoid non survival things, The key point here is that LIVING things are aware or conscious. A computer has no need or desire to CONTINUE to live. Computers do not avoid death. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Great! So you say atoms are alive. Does that include all atoms? Since this is a science forum and not an opinion forum, could you please post the science that confirms that atoms are living things. I do not think you actually thought about the implications of what you are saying.

Just to be clear, I am saying that LIFE is not made of atoms. I am saying atoms are not alive. Yes, living things do have a form that is made of atoms. My question is, what is life. If it is just a group of atoms then, then specifically, What type of atoms and in what arrangement? In what quantity? If life is made of a specific quantity of certain atoms in an exact quantity, then that would be covered by chemistry. So what is the chemistry of life, if it is 100% atoms? Here is a logical way to look at this question of life: 1. Is an atom, electron, proton, neutron, or any other atomic particle alive? Yes/No I say no. If you say yes, please give the science behind it. 2. I say if one atomic particle is not alive then two are not alive, three are not alive and so on. Grouping atomic particles together does not make them spontaneously come alive. If you disagree please give some sort of science that refutes my statement. So life is a properly functioning brain? The brain is life, the brain gives life. If someone had a quarter of their brain missing, would they be a quarter less alive then someone with a fully intact brain? Is the whole brain life or a certain part? You see, the brain is an organ, an organ that has a different shape and function of the other organs, but it is a thing that is made of atoms and nothing else. The brain is another part of the nervous system which receives and sends electrical impulses to the body. It is like a switchboard for relaying electrical impulses. A brain is a tool that is part of a life form that enhances the survival of that form. There are many living things that do not have a brain, those with a brain are able to do more in the physical universe. Let me be clear here. You say that you and the chair are made of the exact same fundamental particles, and the ONLY difference is the arrangement of these particles. Is it possible for man to give the exact atomic structure of the chair you are sitting on? I say yes. Is it possible for man to give the exact atomic structure of life? I say no. I say life is not an atomic structure. I say that it is possible for man to give the exact atomic structure of a human body or any of its parts. I say that a human body has the same atomic structure whether it is dead or alive. You say that you and the chair have the same exact fundamental particles only the arrangement of these particles is different. Yet you are alive and the chair isn’t. If life is purely atomic what is the scientific answer that shows how one atomic structure is alive and one atomic structure is not alive? Are you suggesting that a living man experienced a change in atomic structure and so no longer was alive? That object known as a chair would be alive if the arrangement of the atoms were changed? You say that you and the chair have the exact same fundamental particles. You say that the only difference between you (a living thing) and a chair (a non living thing) is the arrangement of the atoms. You say that a chair does not posses an additional special “chair hood” force. Ok I agree. You say that there are no “chair particles”. Ok, I agree. So if you (the living thing) is made of the same particles as a non living thing (the chair) and only the arrangement is different. So what action, force, energy, or whatever you want to call it is added to this arrangement or comes about from this arrangement that turns a group of non living atoms into living atoms? You must have some access to the exact science behind this change. The chemical composition of a chair is X. The chemical composition of a living person is Y. X is non living. Y is alive. What is the physics, chemistry, action, energy, that causes that change? One group of chemicals, non living. Another group of chemicals, living. Science explains this in what way? I hope that I have made my question clear. I am not here to challenge you or try and prove you wrong. My question is based on pure science and uses pure science to examine the factors involved in this subject of life. Do you agree? Up to this point in our discussion I would have to agree with your view point based on opinion and not science, you have your point of view and I have mine. Is there any way we can resolve this question. I am more interested in knowing more about life and what science has to say, than just arguing with you. If anybody can give evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that life is made of a specific group of atoms please share it. You see, all I am doing in this discussion is raising a REASONABLE doubt. From the science that I have come in contact with I have not been given any evidence that a group of atoms become alive when arranged in a specific order. If anybody knows of such evidence then please share it. If you say that the existance of living things is proof that atoms can become alive, that that same reasoning would prove the existance of God. The existance of something does not explain how it got that way.

What is this huge number exactly? What is the proper order? What is this recipe for gathering atoms and electrons and mixing them together to make life? I am sorry that i am being so sarcastic but you are missing the point. If an atom is not alive and an electron is not alive then no matter how much dead stuff you mix together in whatever combination you will not create life. Look at it mathmatically. Atoms are non-living. Lifeless. Lifeless + Lifeless = Lifeless. Lifeless multiplied by whatever number will still be lifeless. If a lifeless thing becomes alive then life was added to it, not more non-living matter. In this universe there are things that are made of huge numbers of atoms and electrons, yet not alive. There are some very inticate objects in this universe, yet not alive. There are things that were living and then died, did the magic amount of atoms and electrons change? Did the order become disorder. Is that what dying is, some rearrangment or loss or addition of atoms? Really, think about it. If atoms and electrons are not alive, then how would the arrangment or amount change these non-living things into living? Life does not have an atomic stucture. Do you agree with what I have said? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOriginally Posted by Eric 5 There are many things that are made of a bunch of atoms and are not alive. Posted by Eric 5 If we are 100% atoms then that would make atoms alive, again there are many things that are made of 100% atoms and are not alive. What is it that makes something alive. Look, you are alive, what atom or brain cell do you think makes you alive? Response: The lemons and limes are objects not living things. They are made of matter. You compared matter (fruit) to living things. There is no connection in in your statement of how atoms become alive. Posted by Eric 5 I noticed that you said that when electrical activity in YOUR brain stops you die. Who is this your? Who is the owner of this brain? There are many things on this planet that do not have brains that are alive, looks like being alive does not require a brain. Response: The owner of the brain? So there is a brain and an owner of a brain, that sounds like two different things. You make it sound as though there is a something that is not a brain but is something different then a brain. There is a brain and the owner. Am I understanding you correctly? Posted by Eric 5 Do you think that you are a brain? If so, still understand that brains are not life. Adding a brain or electricity to organs such as a brain does not make life. Response: The brain and the body are flesh. Flesh is matter. Matter does not refer to itself as I or MY. Matter is not conscious. Matter is not aware of itself. Dead people are a brain + a body. What is the missing ingredient that animates bodies? Posted by Eric 5 Atoms are not alive. Electricity is not alive. The brain is made of 100% atoms. There has to be something that more to this what is life thing. Posted by Eric 5 A computer is never alive even when it is plugged in. A computer is not conscious. Response: No. Computers are built by life. Computers are programed by life. Computers will never be aware of themselves because they will never be alive. Computers are just a thing made of atoms and electrons. AI is not actual inteligence. Computers will never have self generated emotions. They will not experience fear, happiness, disappointment, etc. Computers will not have desires or curiosity. Computers left to fend for themselves have no urge to survive. Computers are like all other matter, they are non-living things. Even if life creates a computer that can simulate a brain, A BRAIN IS NOT LIFE. A simulation of forms such as brains, eyes, nose, talking robots, all these life created things are just that..matter rearranged by life into different forms that do various things that life created them to do. There is a huge difference between matter and energy in all of it's various forms and that thing that is not matter or electrons, but desires to create survive and be happy. Life made computers to use as a tool. That tool has no idea that it is a computer or that it can die if it does not figure out what it takes to survive. All matter and energy have no fear of dying, and those things never will. Life is not a form or structure. As you read this and think about a response, is that just atoms and electrons thinking and deciding? When you look for data such as pictures, concepts, words, and other things in your head, what is doing the looking? When you try to remember something and scan through your thoughts, you are doing the looking. Chemicals do not look. Electrons do not look. Something is organizing all of this data in your head, filing it away so that it can be retreived. There you are with a head full of data, you put the data there. When you close your eyes and picture something, think about the fact that something created that picture and something is looking at that picture and even making a recording of that action as a memory. As living beings we do far more than mere atoms and electrons are capable of. Posted by Eric 5 Life is something other then atoms and electricity. Think about it, and when you do ask yourself who or what is doing this thinking. Response: So death is just a disrupted pattern? Patterns of things are not alive. Arrangment of things is not life. This computer screen is a pattern of atoms and electrical activity, the screen is not alive. Are all patterns of atoms and electrical activity life? There is no evidence that atoms become alive just because they are grouped together. Can you think of any other possible idea of what life is that does not include the mixing of non-living particles.

There are many clear scientific definitions for time. Look around you, what is your experience with time. Take a scientific approach to time. You can find out for yourself what time is. It is either a physical thing as defined in any scientific reference book, or it is not a physical thing. If you let go of your preconcieved ideas about time and take an unbiased look at the subject of time you will find the underlying nature of time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You are correct. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged As YOU see it? Stick to science. What does science say about time? There is no standard definition of time that says it is a force of nature. You are just making up stuff.

We are on the topic of ghosts, I raised the question of life. I said atoms are not alive and you talk of what atom makes water wet, what atom makes a tree grow, and plant ghosts. Do you agree that atoms, electrons are not alive? A computer is a structure of many atoms, one atom or a million atoms, makes no difference the computer is not alive. All of those functions that a computer can do have to be done by an outside influence. The computer does not think or decide what to do. Do you agree that atoms, electrons are not alive? One of the easiest ways to unravel a mystery or start to solve a problem is to throw out what does not fit or apply. Many people believe that life is a form of some sort, like a flesh body, a vegatable structure, some kind of structure made from atoms. Some people believe that life is a brain, or that we are a brain. This too is a thing made of atoms. So the question is..... are atoms, electrons alive? This is a basic stepping stone in moving toward answering the question of what is life. Do you agree that atoms, electrons are not alive?

When you say observe time are you literally implying that time is percieveable with our eyes? Everybody can get the idea of time passing in a dark room with their eyes closed. No light. You must elaborate on what you mean by observe time.

There are many things that are made of a bunch of atoms and are not alive. If we are 100% atoms then that would make atoms alive, again there are many things that are made of 100% atoms and are not alive. What is it that makes something alive. Look, you are alive, what atom or brain cell do you think makes you alive? I noticed that you said that when electrical activity in YOUR brain stops you die. Who is this your? Who is the owner of this brain? There are many things on this planet that do not have brains that are alive, looks like being alive does not require a brain. Do you think that you are a brain? If so, still understand that brains are not life. Adding a brain or electricity to organs such as a brain does not make life. Atoms are not alive. Electricity is not alive. The brain is made of 100% atoms. There has to be something that more to this what is life thing. A computer is never alive even when it is plugged in. A computer is not conscious. Life is something other then atoms and electricity. Think about it, and when you do ask yourself who or what is doing this thinking.

There are many clear definitions of time. Look in any scientific dictionary. Time has been defined by science and there is no confusion or mystery regarding how science defines time. Time is a consideration brought about through the perception of motion. Time is not a physical thing that moves clocks or exists in any form. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I know how to read a clock. If you think clocks measure time, then please give the reference that describes this process, I have asked people on this forum before to give some explaination of how a clock actually measures time and no one has given a description. So now is your chance to tell me and the rest of us how exactly a clock measures time. Maybe you can start by explaining what form this thing (time) is made of, and then go into the description of how this thing can influence a physical device like a clock. You say clocks measure time, where is the scientific description of this occurence?

What does it mean to die? What makes something alive? Do you think that we are just a bunch of atoms and that is it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The idea of turning into a ghost would need more explaination. One minute you are not a ghost and then you are, that is what I am saying is strange. In order to get to the heart of the matter regarding ghosts you would have to figure out what is life. Is life just a bunch of atoms or is there more to it?