Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Leonard James

Origin of life.

If science finally unravels the origin of life and shows categorically that it could have occurred by a totally natural chemical/physical process, how do you think that will affect Christian belief?

I am referring, of course, to those Christians who do not accept abiogenesis as possible at the moment.
Farmer Geddon

They would still think "Goddidit"..
Dave B

Yup, the fundamental fundamentalists would simply rationalise it to give God the credit anyway.
Judders Lady...

Re: Origin of life.

Leonard James wrote:
If science finally unravels the origin of life and shows categorically that it could have occurred by a totally natural chemical/physical process, how do you think that will affect Christian belief?

I am referring, of course, to those Christians who do not accept abiogenesis as possible at the moment.


To be honest with you Leonard,

If scientist could prove that life was a natural phenomen, by that, they could recreate it from not using any tissues from the human already here.
That would leave me with a dilemma.

(a). I do know and speak with a person whom I believe and know to be God.
He has lead me through my life and he has been the reason I don't do what everyone else does.

(b). It would have to be human life that the scientist recreate from not using human matter already here. The reason being that the bible teaches God created the animals and with man he formed him from the dust but breathed into his nostrils to make him a living soul.

So for me there is a bigger dilemma to face.

God made man a living soul, he was made like God to be able to talk with God. So there is no way if man created a human being without using the material already here that I could carry on as believing God had to breath into his nostrils to make man a living soul.
Mans soul came from the breath of God. That cannot be found in anything within the earth for it was God given not made from anything created.

John 1 tells us that God created the World through his Words.
He spoke and it was done. Jesus Christ was the Word made flesh.
He spoke the Words of God to mankind. Deuteronomy 18.
But what no one ever realises is that God did not speak mans living soul into him. He was not made a living soul by the power of the Word alone.
Man was made a living soul by Genesis 2: 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
The breath of life came from God it was not created and did not come through the things created. It came directly from the breath God breathed into his nostrils.
For me, if man created a living soul in a human being from nothing human in existence. Then  I cannot believe what is written.
As God said,

6.The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


The breath of life did not come from anything that was created as the word says, God is the only true immortal. Believers do not know all the truth they just accept what people tell them about the Word.
But when you seek Truth then the truth shows that mans life was not created through the Word. It was God given by the breath of God himself..
He did speak and say... God formed man out of the dust and ground.
He took something he created through the Word Genesis 1 and he then formed a man and breathed his life into him.


As my faith is based in the bible being truth. How, if man created life without existing matter of human beings and put life into that human being, could I believe the bible is the true Word of God?

Love Lynne.xx
Ketty

Lucifers Duck wrote:
They would still think "Goddidit"..


I don't know if I would - but then I'm 100% certain, the only irrefutable proof that will ever be found is that, GOD did it.  
Leonard James

Re: Origin of life.

Judders Lady... wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
If science finally unravels the origin of life and shows categorically that it could have occurred by a totally natural chemical/physical process, how do you think that will affect Christian belief?

I am referring, of course, to those Christians who do not accept abiogenesis as possible at the moment.


To be honest with you Leonard,

If scientist could prove that life was a natural phenomen, by that, they could recreate it from not using any tissues from the human already here.
That would leave me with a dilemma.

I wasn't referring to human life, Lynne, but life in its most primitve form, i.e., a simple self-replicating molecule. Once that happened, faults in copying would occur and evolution would start off leading to all the life forms on this earth.
Quote:
It would have to be human life that the scientist recreate from not using human matter already here.

That is impossible, and I would not be so silly as to suggest it.
Judders Lady...

Re: Origin of life.

Leonard James wrote:
Judders Lady... wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
If science finally unravels the origin of life and shows categorically that it could have occurred by a totally natural chemical/physical process, how do you think that will affect Christian belief?

I am referring, of course, to those Christians who do not accept abiogenesis as possible at the moment.


To be honest with you Leonard,

If scientist could prove that life was a natural phenomen, by that, they could recreate it from not using any tissues from the human already here.
That would leave me with a dilemma.

I wasn't referring to human life, Lynne, but life in its most primitve form, i.e., a simple self-replicating molecule. Once that happened, faults in copying would occur and evolution would start off leading to all the life forms on this earth.


Again.. you say
Quote:
evolution would start off leading to all the life forms on this earth.

Doesn't that include human beings and wouldn't that still require them to be living souls as we are?
We came from something... so they could not use what is already formed.
But would require a process quite different from the one still evolving now.
So what do you mean? How can you not include Human beings?
The primitive became what we are today. The bible says the animal life came from God speaking it into being. But mans life came through him making them living souls from his breath.

Surely it is not unreasonable to expect given the change in the earth

Genesis 3:17.

17.And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;


How would anything be as it was before the fall? Would the life forms be the same from such matter?

Quote:

Quote:
It would have to be human life that the scientist recreate from not using human matter already here.

That is impossible, and I would not be so silly as to suggest it.


But if we just originated without the hand of God. Why would it be impossible? They have the fallen/(unfallen if no God) earth and all the essential ingredients already here. After all, we are here.
So what is stopping the scientist from making us again - without the matter we have already become , being used?

Love Lynne.xx
Leonard James

Human beings are just another form of life, Lynne, and part of the great tree of life which evolution has produced.

I can understand why belief in abiogenesis meets with some resistance from Christians, and that was what my question was about.
Judders Lady...

Leonard James wrote:
Human beings are just another form of life, Lynne, and part of the great tree of life which evolution has produced.

I can understand why belief in abiogenesis meets with some resistance from Christians, and that was what my question was about.


I think the truth is shown that life could not have originated from non-living matter. How would that be possible?
Isn't that on the same level as belief that 'Godidit'?



Love Lynne.xx
Dave B

Leonard James wrote:
Human beings are just another form of life, Lynne, and part of the great tree of life which evolution has produced.

I can understand why belief in abiogenesis meets with some resistance from Christians, and that was what my question was about.
Yup, take the human genome, swap a (comparatively) few links in the chain and you have a pig. Or even a goat!

There again I have met human pigs who did not need any such swaps!
Leonard James

Judders Lady... wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Human beings are just another form of life, Lynne, and part of the great tree of life which evolution has produced.

I can understand why belief in abiogenesis meets with some resistance from Christians, and that was what my question was about.


I think the truth is shown that life could not have originated from non-living matter.

No, it hasn't been shown.
Quote:
How would that be possible?

It is known that molecules often form automatically from their constituent elements. A combination could have arisen which was capable of forming a copy of itself and then splitting.
Quote:
Isn't that on the same level as belief that 'Godidit'?

No, because there is no evidence that 'God' even exists, let alone made the universe.
Leonard James

Dave B wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Human beings are just another form of life, Lynne, and part of the great tree of life which evolution has produced.

I can understand why belief in abiogenesis meets with some resistance from Christians, and that was what my question was about.
Yup, take the human genome, swap a (comparatively) few links in the chain and you have a pig. Or even a goat!

And to get a chimp you need even less changes. The inference is obvious.
Quote:
There again I have met human pigs who did not need any such swaps!

Quite! We can only try to teach them better!  
Dave B

In a test tank at work, that had not been used for many months, I noticed some "strings" floating around.

I though that they were bugs of some sort but we just happened to have a well equipped chemical analysis department on site, with a very nosey chemist.

He took some samples of these "strings" and put them under the microscope. They were not any kind of life form, neither by inspection nor by testing for nucleic acids.

But they were complex organic (carbon based) polymers, repeated strings of complex chemicals from the environment.

Not life, but with a similar structure in some ways (though very, very repetitive and simple.)

Even a single non-living molecule, a prion, can replicate, hence we have Mad Cow disease and the human equivalents. Might there be prion based, rather than DNA based, life forms one day?

Many chemicals have "affinities" and "phobias" (which is exactly why soap works.) This encourages them to assemble in those "strings". Thus, given enough mixed chemistry, energy and a few billion years all kinds of interesting things can happen.
Leonard James

Hi Dave,

My knowledge of chemistry is nil, so I won't make any attempt to discuss it.

In my mind's eye I have a picture of a simple chain forming which will attract similar constituent elements to its corresponding parts, and when the whole chain is copied, the original and duplicate somehow unbond, and the process then repeats itself.
Dave B

Leonard James wrote:
Hi Dave,

My knowledge of chemistry is nil, so I won't make any attempt to discuss it.

In my mind's eye I have a picture of a simple chain forming which will attract similar constituent elements to its corresponding parts, and when the whole chain is copied, the original and duplicate somehow unbond, and the process then repeats itself.
Yes, it is the "self duplication" bit that is the crunch.

I have to admit that, with all the chemistry going on way back then, there was, apparently, only one combination that worked. But we do not know what happened over all aeons of the time from the formation of the Earth to the first evidence of life. Perhaps there were other forms that never got established enough to leave evidence.

I am pretty damn sure, though, no supernatural entity sat there with a large chemistry set and assembled DNA from the available elements, then did millions of variations from viruses to blue whales - and all the other stuff in between and before. Can't prove that of course, but weighing things in the balance I will go for a unique, random event and a whole lot of evolution.
Leonard James

Dave B wrote:
I am pretty damn sure, though, no supernatural entity sat there with a large chemistry set and assembled DNA from the available elements, then did millions of variations from viruses to blue whales - and all the other stuff in between and before. Can't prove that of course, but weighing things in the balance I will go for a unique, random event and a whole lot of evolution.

It is the complete illogicality of the claim that clinches its falsity for me. Why? Why on earth would such an awesome power cause it all to happen so that a select few humans could go and spend eternity with him? The sheer silliness of such an idea makes it a non-starter, imo.
Dave B

Leonard James wrote:
Dave B wrote:
I am pretty damn sure, though, no supernatural entity sat there with a large chemistry set and assembled DNA from the available elements, then did millions of variations from viruses to blue whales - and all the other stuff in between and before. Can't prove that of course, but weighing things in the balance I will go for a unique, random event and a whole lot of evolution.

It is the complete illogicality of the claim that clinches its falsity for me. Why? Why on earth would such an awesome power cause it all to happen so that a select few humans could go and spend eternity with him? The sheer silliness of such an idea makes it a non-starter, imo.
With you there Len!  
SusanDoris

LJ - I agree of course!
This link is to an article about some multi-cellular life forms that did not need oxygen. It was mentioned on the GHMB (Graham Hancock message board) News Desk.
http://www.physorg.com/news189836027.html
Some of the Mysteries an, Inner Space and several other boards are really way out! but the News Desk is almost always interesting and the Science and Space board is too.
Dave B

SusanDoris wrote:
LJ - I agree of course!
This link is to an article about some multi-cellular life forms that did not need oxygen. It was mentioned on the GHMB (Graham Hancock message board) News Desk.
http://www.physorg.com/news189836027.html
Some of the Mysteries an, Inner Space and several other boards are really way out! but the News Desk is almost always interesting and the Science and Space board is too.
Thanks Susan, that was interesting reading.
Leonard James

Thank you Susan! It makes you realise how systematically science is pushing back the boundaries of our knowledge. All power to it!
T8-eh-T8

Did you guys catch this article today on the beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8609192.stm
Quote:

The remarkable remains of two ancient human-like creatures (hominids) have been found in South Africa.

The fossils of a female adult and a juvenile male - perhaps mother and son - are just under two million years old.
Leonard James

T8-eh-T8 wrote:
Did you guys catch this article today on the beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8609192.stm
Quote:

The remarkable remains of two ancient human-like creatures (hominids) have been found in South Africa.

The fossils of a female adult and a juvenile male - perhaps mother and son - are just under two million years old.

Thank you, Andyman. Every stitch in the tapestry of evolution makes the picture a little clearer, but I doubt that we will ever find all the links in the chain.

Fossilisation is a rare event, representing a tiny fraction of all the creatures that have ever lived, and I don't think there is any doubt that many species arose, flourished and then became extinct without leaving any fossils at all.
SusanDoris

The thing I find most difficult even to begin to understand is the fact that millions of years way before the dinosaurs, the animal skeleton and internal organs had all evolved; thus enabling all the animal forms to move on.
Dave B

SusanDoris wrote:
The thing I find most difficult even to begin to understand is the fact that millions of years way before the dinosaurs, the animal skeleton and internal organs had all evolved; thus enabling all the animal forms to move on.
Just shows that we are but one step on the ladder I thing Susan.

We are just another version of the whole, huge variation of vertebrate life that has existed since the first.

Assuming that we do not foul the planet up entirely I wonder what could be next?

Just an interesting aside: listening to an R4 prog on fungi it seems that those lowly forms of life are closer to us genetically than plants are. Oooer  
Rocca Vagges

Leonard James wrote:

It is the complete illogicality of the claim that clinches its falsity for me. Why? Why on earth would such an awesome power cause it all to happen so that a select few humans could go and spend eternity with him? The sheer silliness of such an idea makes it a non-starter, imo.



Oy! you, you atheistic thesbian you. I'll ave you know that I is a special creation I is, bloody atheists they gets in everywhere they does
Dave B

I don't think Len is a "thesbian", could be he is the wrong sex if a similar orientation (as it were!)

Oh, hang on, you meant "thespian"!

Leonard James

Rocca Vagges wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

It is the complete illogicality of the claim that clinches its falsity for me. Why? Why on earth would such an awesome power cause it all to happen so that a select few humans could go and spend eternity with him? The sheer silliness of such an idea makes it a non-starter, imo.



Oy! you, you atheistic thesbian you. I'll ave you know that I is a special creation I is, bloody atheists they gets in everywhere they does

Oh, so you are still alive, are you, you creepy little Irish life form? I thought you had finally succumbed to the alcoholic haze which surrounds you. Any apparent jealousy on my part is purely coincidental.

Nice to see you again, Val.  
Rocca Vagges

Dave B wrote:
I don't think Len is a "thesbian", could be he is the wrong sex if a similar orientation (as it were!)

Oh, hang on, you meant "thespian"!


My 'p' was upside down, that's all  
Rocca Vagges

Leonard James wrote:
Rocca Vagges wrote:
Leonard James wrote:

It is the complete illogicality of the claim that clinches its falsity for me. Why? Why on earth would such an awesome power cause it all to happen so that a select few humans could go and spend eternity with him? The sheer silliness of such an idea makes it a non-starter, imo.



Oy! you, you atheistic thesbian you. I'll ave you know that I is a special creation I is, bloody atheists they gets in everywhere they does

Oh, so you are still alive, are you, you creepy little Irish life form? I thought you had finally succumbed to the alcoholic haze which surrounds you. Any apparent jealousy on my part is purely coincidental.

Nice to see you again, Val. †


Morning Leonard, its nice to be seen, yes Iím still here I think, the daemon drink didnít get me yet and the haze isnít nearly as bad as it used to be, I hope all is well in your sunny clime, its been great here but the garden suffered with our prolonged winter, weíll have to buy loads of new plants but sure isnít that what lifeís about.    
All the best to himindoors
Dave B

[quote="Rocca Vagges"]
Dave B wrote:

My 'p' was upside down, that's all †
Sounds like a self generated golden shower.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum