I will combat this argument with this simple article, are we going to talk subatomic structures or matter? http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html
Actually we are talking about bosonic particles, which do not have mass, vs. fermionic particles, which do have mass. It's been proven theoretically and verified by observation that the interaction of bosonic particles can create fermionic particles.
What I meant without copy and pasting someone elses ideas or thoughts, this is just mine entirely, is like in that case where they used accelerators and high laser beams, it took accelerated electrons blasted across a tube and to collide (with probably a tungtsten material) to dispell millions of electrons thus producing a vast amount of photons (energy)...This was my point, it takes so much more energy to even make one subparticle and this is no where near living matter.
Right, traditional particle accelerators accelerate electrons (or positrons) at relativistic velocities and slam them into a target (the specific nature of the target is irrelevant, except that it's made of fermions - i.e. it has mass). They do not do this to generate photons, although photons are certainly generated. They do this because at the extremely high energies produced by such collisions, energy itself can be converted into exotic forms of matter, which could have existed for very brief amounts of time immediately after the Big Bang.
As to your point that it takes a lot of energy to convert matter into energy, that is right. The energy levels necessary for the creation of a single particle/anti-particle pair is significantly higher than the energy the pair would have at a resting state.
You may want to read up on a branch of experimental/applied physics called "Two Photon Physics" which looks at what happens when photons collide. It's really quite fascinating.
I need to be more pointed in my argument, we have not seen any indication that energy can be converted to any "living" matter in which this whole argument started about is a higher power creating "living" matter from energy.
Terminology does matter, especially in discussions such as this, because without accurate and consistent terms, it's both impossible to get anywhere and possible to get anywhere. For example, there's no such thing as living matter. Matter is matter. Life is an emergent property of particular arrangements of matter. But the way you phrased the above statement suggests some mystical distinction between, say the matter that's in a rock and the matter that is you. Fundamentally, both are quite similar.
I must admit, for someone I thought rolled around naked with pictures of himself, you have proved that your not just another schmoe. Hats off sir!
Well thanks. To be fair, I would never roll around naked with pictures of myself - I'm neither ripped nor muscular enough to entertain such notions. But hey, one can dream... one can dream!
