Living chemical

Harrison snippet 2
A snippet from English-born Canadian physical chemist Lionel Harrison’s The Shaping of Life, wherein he states that assumedly, from a physical chemistry point of view, that there exist ‘chemical’ systems that are ‘alive’ and in good health; we also see him anthropomorphizing chemicals, e.g. chemicals ‘defending’ one another, which has Canadian chemists Peter Mahaffy, et al, suggest is a no-no, in respect to correct or rather chemical thermodynamically neutral deanthropomorphized chemistry descriptions. [1]
In terminology, living chemical or ‘alive chemical’, as contrasted with a ‘non-living chemical’, lifeless chemical, or dead chemical; nearly synonymous with ‘living molecule’, is a religio-mythology meets physical science incongruous neoplasm—chemicals are neither alive nor dead—that frequents discussions of viruses, and or other organism in that range, from the physical science side of the discussion, and or life from non-life objection polemics of religious writers.

Quotes
The following are representative exerts and or quotes, found per cursory Google Books key word search, on the incongruous term “living chemicals”, as can be compared to the term “non-living chemicals”, the epitome of the religious belief meets scientific belief portmanteau implosion:

“To get series of even 1,500 events to happen on order, events that might be moving from non-living chemicals to a living cell, there is only one chance in ten to the power of 450! This means that the probability of godless evolution even getting started is zero. Without belief in God, the only option [is to believe that] purposeless, mindless evolution of non-living chemicals over aeons of time [resulted in the formation of] a living cell and ultimately into man.”
— Jobe Martin (1994) (Ѻ)

“Some microbiologists even go so far as to say that viruses are non-living chemicals. Viruses occupy the twilight zone between the living and the nonliving. ln 1935, Stanley demonstrated that viruses could be crystallised like chemicals. In 1956, Geire and Sehramn extracted infections nucleic acid from a virus that could infect a host cell and go on to replicate. This made them classify viruses as living chemicals.”
— Pushpa Khurana (2005) (Ѻ)

Accidental evolution would require not only living chemicals somehow distinguishing themselves from dead chemicals, but also chemicals desiring to lengthen the lives of their descendent chemical combinations. What mechanism gave such living chemicals the impetus to increase the chances of their descendants’ survival? The implication of this is that not only will a batch of chemicals struggle to survive and avoid death, but that they will also adapt in ways that won’t necessarily help them survive any better, but will help their descendants. What gave these chemicals the ability to calculate structural changes to improve the chances of survival for future species?
C.W. Adams (2006), Actuality: Life in the Real World [2]

Spontaneous generation is a term referring to the manifestation of living organisms from non-living chemicals (also called abiogenesis). Evolutionists vehemently deny that they believe in spontaneous generation, but if you probe them about the appearance the first living organism, they will say that somehow it must have come from non-living chemicals. The name for this non-living mixture that they think spawned life varies: primordial goo, prebiotic soup, ancient oceans, etc. Some evolutionists, after admitting that they believe nonlife produced life, will argue with you that they do not believe in spontaneously generation, though they believe precisely the definition of spontaneous generation.”
— Brock Lee (2009) (Ѻ)

“Why would a lifeless or previously lifeless bag of chemicals decide it was important that future generations even exist, let alone improve their chances of survival? While we might quickly assume that living organisms would want to produce offspring with grater chances of survival, there is no rational reason for this desire. Why would a selfishly motivated newly living organism care about a future generation? First accidental evolutionists make a huge leap assuming that life somehow spontaneously generated from chemicals. Then they make a huge leap that these newly living chemicals somehow preferred survival and pain as opposed to a painless existence of nonlife. Then they make another huge leap by assuming that these newly living chemicals could and would want to dilute their strength to produce offspring that require only trouble and work to maintain. They against all odds, evolution theory proponents take the leap in assuming that these newly living chemicals somehow created an ‘unselfish gene’ that somehow passed on improvements for the future survival of future generations who do nothing for that newly living chemical itself. All of this was done by newly living chemicals that not much different in substance from their dead chemical cousins? The only answer accidental evolutionists seem to give us to these questions is that this all must have been a series of random accidents.”
C.W. Adams (2008), The Science of Truth [3]

“Evolutionist professor Paul Davies was honest enough to admit that ‘nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell’. Evolutionary atheist scientists have yet to figure out just how intelligent life could have spontaneously developed from non-living chemicals.”
— Michael Dedivonai (2012) (Ѻ)

References
1. (a) Harrison, Lionel G. (2011). The Shaping of Life: the Generation of Biological Pattern (cell-as-molecule, 4+ pgs; image, pg. 145). Cambridge University Press.
(b) Mahaffy, Peter, Bucat, Bob, and Tasker, Roy, Kotz, John C, Weaver, Gabriela, C. treichel, Paul M., and McMurry, John E. (2011). Chemistry: Human Activity, Chemical Reactivity (philosophy). Nelson Canada.
2. Adams, C.W. (2006). Actuality: Life in the Real World (§:How could Chemicals have a Desire to Survive , pgs. 84-85; §:Chemicals Cannot Decide to Extend Their Successor’s Lives”,pgs. 86-87). C.W. Adams.
3. Adams, C.W. (2008). The Science of Truth (pg. 159). Science of Truth Publishing.

TDics icon ns

More pages