in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Rebel - Personally I also with my limited research believe direct evidence for the origin of life impossible.
Cofty - Don't you think you should thoroughly investigate the evidence before you declare something impossible?
Rebel - you sound like a bully who beats kids up at school
That is pathetic. It's the sort of comment that makes conversation almost impossible.
I will reply to other qs later.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
John Mann. The idea that the first "real human" lived just 6000 years ago is risible.
What is this thing you call a soul?
Does the bible not say that animals are also souls? Anyway this thread is about origin of life.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Dont you think you should thoroughly investigate the evidence before you declare something impossible?
What do you mean by "direct evidence"?
what's is the goal of this religion?.
i mean, if it's for money they could do a lot more like other religions do: tithing, paying for prayers from the gb, selling "miracles", selling "blessed" items, selling courses.. if its for power then what are they hoping to do with that power?
they dont seem to do anything.
I think it began with genuine belief. Now the organisation has a momentum and life of its own that even the GB can hardly control.
Individually they probably worry about loyalty to the "organisation" as much as the average loyal JW does.
They have created a monster with a history and self-importance that nobody is in control of.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
a) would most agree that the origin of life began over 3 billion years ago?
Newly discovered stromatolites in Greenland have been dated to 3.7 billions years ago. Since these are evidence of the diversity of life at that period it proves that life began around 4 billion years ago. That's just a few hundred million years after the formation of planet earth.
It suggests that life is not a random event. It is probably inevitable on a geologically active planet.
b) if so then would we agree direct evidence for the origin of life impossible?
It depends on what you mean by "direct evidence". I think it will be shown step-by-step how life can emerge from geochemistry through unguided naturalistic means.
C) However am I correct in assuming the first cause of life had to be living?
No. Absolutely not. There is a continuum from geochemistry to biochemistry.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
the 'atheistic counterpart to jehovahs witnesses' makes as many assertions that evidence from science does not support - Ruby
Who is this straw-man and what does it have to do with the topic?
the science in cofty's op actually supports vidqun's view - Ruby
You could not be more wrong. Literally it would be impossible to be more wrong.
From previous experience you did not understand a single sentence in Lane's book. I doubt if you did more than speed-read the first few pages.
Cofty do you believe in the possibility of aliens.Disclosure is not far away.Lets face it if humans exist why not other life forms from other planets - Automant
I think that bacterial life is probably very common. It is far less likely that complex multicellular life exists elsewhere.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
What exactly sounds insane to you? The time (6,000)?
Modern humans with intelligence and hopes and fears and self-awareness just like ours have been around for approximately 100,000 years.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
This is entertainment to SBF.
Lying about what others have said, posting impossibly obtuse statements and generally behaving like a drunk at a dinner party.
Three hundred posts on what should have been a simple and interesting topic about origin-of-life research and what it might say about theism. Probably 250 of those posts off-topic.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Automant - Don't post drunk
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
Cofty you say I misrepresent you. You say you don't in fact believe that scientific discoveries can answer questions about God. Yet at various times in the thread you made statements that suggest otherwise. Not least in the opening post.
Yes you still continue to misrepresent my views. But there is no possible way to correct that when the person doing the misrepresenting is doing so knowingly and deliberately.
There is no way anybody can be so staggeringly obtuse so the only possible alternative is that you are lying.
For lurkers who may be misled by SBF's dishonest tactics....
1 - Of course science has things to say that have implications of theology.
2 - Science can NEVER prove that god does not exist.
There is no contradiction in these two simple statements.
Reason, logic, common sense, reality - these things can show that the god of christian theism is a delusion but the fact of evolution and the possibility of solving abiogenesis will NOT prove there is no god..
I have NEVER said otherwise and I have told SBF that a ridiculous number of times. Viv has also explained that to you dozens of times.
SBF - My contempt with your tactics on this thread is total.
