|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 12, 2019 1:48:49 GMT
One big reason scientists are reluctant to the idea of the supernatural is that history is replete with cases where what at first seems supernatural turns out, on closer inspection, to be quite natural. A great example that I've brought up before is Vitalism: the belief that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things". Before and after the periodic chart of the elements was "completed" represent very different phases in the expansion of science. It is a consistently observable ("scientific") fact that non living clusters of molecules do not "evolve" in the same way as living things. Smaller cluster have the competitive advantage over larger ones. Non living things are obviously fundamentally different in that they have systems of energy collection and utilization and protection against the environment among other things required for their continued assembly. It is the old concept of "animalcules" that is passe. You've been using faulty sources again. I made no claims about non-living clusters of molecules, and that point is irrelevant to the discussion of Vitalism, therefore you display faulty logic in deducing that my sources are faulty. Vitalists believed that organic materials couldn't be synthesized from inorganic components, so that cause took a big blow when urea was synthesized from inorganic components. Vitalism has been dead since the early 20th century, as it's clear that the same chemical principles govern biological and inorganic chemistry. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 12, 2019 2:18:11 GMT
Before and after the periodic chart of the elements was "completed" represent very different phases in the expansion of science. It is a consistently observable ("scientific") fact that non living clusters of molecules do not "evolve" in the same way as living things. Smaller cluster have the competitive advantage over larger ones. Non living things are obviously fundamentally different in that they have systems of energy collection and utilization and protection against the environment among other things required for their continued assembly. It is the old concept of "animalcules" that is passe. You've been using faulty sources again. I made no claims about non-living clusters of molecules, and that point is irrelevant to the discussion of Vitalism, therefore you display faulty logic in deducing that my sources are faulty. Vitalists believed that organic materials couldn't be synthesized from inorganic components, so that cause took a big blow when urea was synthesized from inorganic components. Vitalism has been dead since the early 20th century, as it's clear that the same chemical principles govern biological and inorganic chemistry. I admit I had no idea what "vitalists" believed. It is not "faulty logic" on my part. I was addressing that part. So I stand by my claim that living things are fundamentally different. The fact that organic materials can be constructed inorganically is not a strong argument for anything here. The question is not whether they can be constructed in laboratories. They question is whether they can construct themselves. Obviously the fact that I can build an automobile is no argument that a tornado can. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 12, 2019 2:24:23 GMT
I suppose if you have had some sort of magnetic ability akin to Magneto and wearing a metal vest
|
|
