CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
26
Good guess No way
Debate Score:48
Arguments:70
Total Votes:50
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Good guess (18)
 
 No way (20)

Debate Creator

atypican(4873) pic



The origin of life is fire

When I daydream about the origins of life I often think that life must have evolved from (types of) fire. It is so much like life. It "eats", self replicates, grows, dies etc. Do you think thats kooky, or fun to ponder? Have you ever heard of any respected scientists who published anything that smacks of my informal suspicion?

Good guess

Side Score: 22
VS.

No way

Side Score: 26
3 points

"When I daydream about the origins of life I often think that life must have evolved from (types of) fire. It is so much like life. It "eats", self replicates, grows, dies etc. Do you think thats kooky, or fun to ponder? Have you ever heard of any respected scientists who published anything that smacks of my informal suspicion?"

Now apes have evolved from fire ROTFFLMMFAO you Progressives are Crazy !

Side: Good guess
aryamaan(4) Disputed
2 points

We read about the smallest unit of life in our science classes. It is cell. Cell is called the smallest structural and functional unit of life. It means life can exist only when cells are alive. Where is cell in fire.

Side: No way
aryamaan(4) Disputed
1 point

You said cell can eat. Is eating a characteristic of life. Life means eating and using that food for nutrition. Fire never replicates. Fire just expands. There is a lot of difference between expansion and reproduction. Fire never dies we say it extinguishes it was never alive so how can it die. Fire is nothing more than a flame. And we all know how flame is formed. Its formed by the burning of vaporised fuel. Where the hell is life.

Side: No way
1 point

un, good guess but no ..... The origin of life is God - all things were created by him (Jesus) and for him .... see DNA

Side: Good guess
Stravick(32) Disputed
1 point

Life originated from natural processes that took no outside entity to preform.

Side: No way
aaabbbccc(1) Disputed
2 points

Yeah! You are absolutely right. Life originated from natural process. Let me tell you that life is not possible without the existence of sun. The plants cannot live the animals cant live and the humans can't survive. And the sun is a great contributor to creation of life and its existence. And, what do you think sun is made up of? Its made of fire. The nuclear reactions going on in its nucleus provides energy and it burns. So, Fire is the ultimate source of life.

Side: Good guess
1 point

Hello a:

Why not? After all, Moses saw God IN a burning bush..

excon

Side: Good guess
dadman(1466) Disputed
1 point

Moses saw God IN a burning bush

God is not a burning bush .... God can communicate through any form he so desires ...

in your case maybe a donkey could get your attention? ... or then maybe not

===========================

Matthew 13:14-15 .. In their (your) case .. the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled .. which says . . . you will keep on hearing .. but will not understand .. you will keep on seeing .. but will not perceive .. for the heart of this people has become dull .. with their ears they scarcely hear .. and they have closed their eyes .. otherwise they would see with their eyes .. hear with their ears .. and understand with their heart and return .. and I (Jesus) would heal them

Side: No way
1 point

I guess that explains why perverts got fire in their pants and they end up in Hell.

Side: Good guess
1 point

It is truly mind boggling how many ways fools try to make sense of reality.......and a total waste of time to ponder.

Side: Good guess
1 point

Atheists WISH God was nothing more than fire ....

it would mean that they would not spend eternity suffering the wrong side of that coin

Side: Good guess
Stravick(32) Disputed
1 point

Atheist don't wish anything of the sort. They don't care enough to even ponder that false reality.

Side: No way
1 point

sure why not? You started with fire (sin) and are dying in in, and eternal dying in fire is your destiny if you don't get saved.

Side: Good guess

No, it isn't. It carries no genetic material that divides, and there are no generations of it (In Ancient Indian Religion, fire represented eternity).

However, for your second question, though no scientist has ever put the absurd idea forward, it is originally that of Heraclitus.

Side: No way
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

No, it isn't. It carries no genetic material that divides, and there are no generations of it

That doesnt mean that it wasnt essential to the chain of events that eventually developed in to life

However, for your second question, though no scientist has ever put the absurd idea forward, it is originally that of Heraclitus.

Lots of ideas are first thought absurd, and later seen as obvious. Offer up your musings about what you think life evolved from and let's see how absurd your ideas are.

Side: Good guess
aryamaan(4) Disputed
1 point

There are many theories about the origin of life. One of them is that life began from bonding of complex proteins due to action of lightning. Isaac Asimov's book describes this process very nicely. Some people say that life came to earth from space as the traces of life are found on asteroids. But fire no way.

Side: No way
1 point

That doesnt mean that it wasnt essential to the chain of events that eventually developed in to life

Being essential isn't enough for fire to be the origin of life.

Side: No way
1 point

That doesnt mean that it wasnt essential to the chain of events that eventually developed in to life

An irrelevant statement that you are introducing just now. But still, I'd recommend you read up on what combustion really is. It wasn't so essential.

Lots of ideas are first thought absurd, and later seen as obvious.

Couldn't keep myself from saying that while answering your question about the idea.

Offer up your musings about what you think life evolved from and let's see how absurd your ideas are.

You can search up abiogenesis and evolution.

Side: No way
2 points

Life is an organism composed of particles that need to stay together. It needs just the right conditions and materials in order to maintain and evolve itself. Fire on the other hand is very high energy. It comes from an explosive chemical reaction and there is no time for the particles to stay together long enough to bond. Therefore, it is near impossible for that to be the case. If it was, then the sun and all of the stars should be flourishing with life.

Side: No way
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

I think that is a pretty good argument. However, don't you think that some form of sustained chemical combustion wherin certain chemicals are broken down and new, increasingly complex chemicals are formed in areas peripheral to the primary source of sustained energy might be key? I would agree that life would be very unlikely to develop where the highest temperature regions are, for reasons you stated, but it seems to me that the variety of reactions possible in the regions where both heating and cooling occur would allow for some amazingly complex chemicals to form given enough time.

Side: Good guess
1 point

Okay, create your own subatomic particles and give it a go. Tic... Toc... Tic......

Toc...

*

Side: No way
2 points

The only way life could have originated was with lighting. Various experiments have replicated the conditions of a pre-life Earth and shown that the creation of simple amino acid protein chains necessary for the creation the most basic forms of life could form with an electrical discharge at the right place and time. From those simplest life forms bacteria would evolve and then so on and so on.

Side: No way
2 points

Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, disease. An STTD ;)

Side: No way
1 point

While the concept of fire acting like life is worth contemplating, there are a few traits that fire lacks in terms of calling it life. For example, all living things, on top of the traits you mentioned, are both autonomous and able to adapt to their environment. I personally believe that true life occurred during the time if the Cambrian Explosion if you want my take on it.

Side: No way
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

Im not calling it life. I suspect it is "proto-life" .

Welcome to CreateDebate by the way :)

Side: Good guess
RennyH(11) Clarified
1 point

Thanks for welcoming me:) Anyways, could define "proto-life", I'm sure it would help forward the debate.

Side: Good guess
1 point

I have heard that life is originally caused by the appearcace of a chemical called carbonyl sulfide which came from volcanic explosions...?

Side: No way
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

Things burning up...hmm... doesn't sound too far off from "types of fire"

Side: Good guess
Impirum(59) Clarified
1 point

Sorry but I don't understand what you meant. What do you mean by 'Things burning up' ? (My native language is not English)

Side: Good guess
1 point

This sort of intuitive reasoning by analogy is not useful nor productive. The boundaries between life and non life are being researched. Whilst that research is interesting and to some degree speculative, none of it involves looking at the role 'fire' played. Heat may be involved in the chemical processes, but fire would break the chemical bonds necessary to form the requisite molecules.

It amazes me that someone can think they can get a direct, unmediated perspective into the universe (in this case life in the universe), instead of knuckling down and producing some actual repeatable, testable results. How do you propose to test this conjecture? Is it to look at fire and go "oooh it looks like life", end of test! Don't expect anyone to be convinced. The earlier post was right, this IS absurd.

Side: No way
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

This sort of intuitive reasoning by analogy is not useful nor productive.

To downplay the role of imaginative speculation, coupled with observation of seemingly analougous behaviors between various "living" and "non-living" phenomena in the initiation of theories of abiogenesis is even less useful and productive than my musings.

The boundaries between life and non life are being researched.

nevermind the difficulty clearly distiguishing between them either. If certain types of people see an opportunity to insult an idea rather than flesh it out through conversation, they will jump on it. I am glad Im not one of these types of people.

Whilst that research is interesting and to some degree speculative, none of it involves looking at the role 'fire' played. Heat may be involved in the chemical processes, but fire would break the chemical bonds necessary to form the requisite molecules.

Its not absurd to see heat playing an integral role, but fire, yeah thats just crazy talk. Heat and fire have nothing to do with one another. (sarcasm) That metabolism involves the -burning- of calories and there is a "metabolism first" school of thought among theorists just makes my line of thinking even more subject to ridicule.

t amazes me that someone can think they can get a direct, unmediated perspective into the universe (in this case life in the universe), instead of knuckling down and producing some actual repeatable, testable results.

You think I don't value scientific methods because I allow myself to speculate according to my own informal observations? I am fighting the urge to tell someone to go fuck themselves...

How do you propose to test this conjecture?

through scientific experimentation.

Is it to look at fire and go "oooh it looks like life", end of test! Don't expect anyone to be convinced. The earlier post was right, this IS absurd.

Nevermind...go fuck yourself

Side: Good guess
Surgeon(8) Disputed
1 point

Quite the little temper tantrum. Boo-hoo the bad man made me cry, because he said the bollocks I spewed out was in fact bollocks, and not a brilliant insight.

The level of incoherency you demonstrate, is only matched by the absurdity of your conjecture. There was more rigor behind the platonic forms than this, and we know what happened to them.

Are you now going to 'imaginatively speculate' (aka pull out of your arse) on the origins of the universe for us. Perhaps it's like...I don't know 'water' right. Utter rubbish, try investing your time better or do some deeper thinking, or just read something.

And by the way fire creates heat as a by product, but heat is obviously not the same as fire. To attempt to confuse the 2 only demonstrates the extreme weakness of your position. Have a nice day.

Side: No way
outlaw60(8861) Clarified
1 point

Did you come to be atypican from the origin of fire or your momma and daddy having sex?

You can't have it both ways so which is it !

Side: Good guess
1 point

For you to know that singularity starts only with hydrogen, helium and lithium. How about Earth? Well, Earth was first covered with Carbon compounds, Carbon Dioxide to be specific. And How it was converted? Thanks to the anaerobic bacteria who help the conversion of Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen, which started the development of Elements, Compounds, and even life, trees, reptiles, and mammals that lead to us. Bacteria is not a Fire! Not Fire! Not Fire!

Side: No way

Life is made out of complex chain molecules, so no. You can't get life from fire. You can get plenty of death out of it though.

Side: No way
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

I suppose earlier events in the chain of events that lead to the emergence of life involved much simpler chemical reactions that didn't involve greatly complex molecules. I suspect that some form of sustained combustion was the precursor to what later became metabolism.. I understand that I may have gone too far back for anyone to find my argument compelling, but do you really doubt that certain types of fire were intrinsically involved in what became life?

Side: Good guess

Well I guess you could call it that. All molecules are made of different atoms of different elements. Elements are forged in the sun.

Sun- elements- molecules- life

Side: Good guess