Posts by Vidqun

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

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.

Vidqun

Cofty, If it is easy to cobble these processes together, even with simplified, rudimentary precursors, we should be seeing results quite soon, but perhaps not. My worldview is open to change. I constantly work at it, taking in consideration a variety of inputs, e.g., archaeology, development of language, etc. But to go into it right now, would derail your thread on the origin of life, so rather not.

One example that might fit, is a possible new definition of death. Doctors have developed a technique of "suspending" a badly injured person in low temperatures for three hours or more. They remove his blood and replace it with Ringer solution. This allows them time to fix for example an injury to his heart without him bleeding out. Gradually he is heated and the Ringer solution replaced with his blood. The person recovers fully without negative effects. In the olden days you were viewed as being dead when your heart stopped beating and your brain stopped functioning. So the processes, sustaining your life, could be "suspended" and then reactivated.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

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.

Vidqun

Ruby, to start off the organism is dead, remember. Now to get the organism to function normally, eating, breathing, replicating, as what one would expect from a living organism.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

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.

Vidqun

Cofty, let's say scientists will soon be able to replicate a one-celled organism exactly, cell wall, cell membrane. organelles, nucleus, enzymes, catalysts, proteins, etc. But now, how to get things going? Remember, the organism is dead. Even if all the nutrients are present, how to start the different cycles? Glycolysis, the Kreb Cycle, electron transport chain, aerobic and/or anaerobic respiration, etc. You are confident that they are going to do it: "It's only a matter of time." I am not so sure. It's a long shot. So, when I see it, I believe it.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

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.

Vidqun

Cofty: Science says all you need is rock, water and carbon dioxide.

And that is exactly the reason why I believe what I believe. You can shake, dilute, concentrate, and/or electrocute rock, water, and carbon dioxide. You can do with such a chemical composition whatever you want. You can change the combination and concentrations in any way you want. And whatever you do, you and your fellow evolutionists can carry on doing it for a million years non-stop. But let me assure you, life and its processes will not be kick started in such a way, yes, even if you stand on your head.

405

Origin of Life

by cofty in

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.

Vidqun

Yes, Slimboyfat, I do think you have nailed it, whether they like it or not. Only two outcomes possible here:

1) Scientists find life on other planets, e.g., Mars. In that case I will have to reconsider my theistic, ID outlook. By the way, even if scientists do succeed in creating life in a lab, that will not sway me in the least. I will just say: See you need an intelligent mind to create life.

2) God is the creator and will make himself known. Even then the majority of anti-theists and evolutionists will reject His authority (cf. Rev. 11:18).

48

"Mother" Teresa—a Fraud?

by Saename in

i often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.

moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.

i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.

Vidqun

One thing we should not forget, she was originally involved with hospice care. Those involved with hospice care look after terminally ill people. Not even modern medical care would be able to save their lives.

48

"Mother" Teresa—a Fraud?

by Saename in

i often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.

moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.

i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.

Vidqun

Konceptual99, I tend towards your side of the issue. She started off with good intentions and she did improve the situation of many. Who are we to judge her motives? I totally agree with you concerning the theological process of making her a saint. That is utter nonsense.

48

"Mother" Teresa—a Fraud?

by Saename in

i often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.

moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.

i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.

Vidqun

Rebel8, the Catholic Church viewed Hitchens as a "Devil's Advocate." Question: Why should Mother Teresa not be canonised? To answer the question, he had to give it his best shot. She is being canonised today, so his testimony was rejected.

Mother Teresa's had been at it since 1948. Who in his/her right mind would choose to live in a slum (Calcutta's slums were the worst), working day and night with dying people, the poorest of the poor. This she did for approximately 50 years, dying with her boots on (no retirement for her). No, I think she was an extraordinary woman. Pity about the controversy shrouding her legacy. Here the Catholic Church should shoulder the blame. The rest of us, living in glass houses, should refrain from throwing stones. And talk of being judgmental, let's leave that to the Witnesses. We should be able to rise above that.

Glad to see she was allowed to die in a modern hospital with the best care. That means the Catholic Church looks after its old people. She had to have a Medical Aid to be admitted to a modern hospital. Well, that's much more than the Witnesses can say. They are only to happy to kick the old and sickly to the kerb.

48

"Mother" Teresa—a Fraud?

by Saename in

i often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.

moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.

i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.

Vidqun

If you as an "untouchable" was lying in the street, dying in your own excrement, it would be a saint that would come and pick you up, take you under roof, wash you, cover you with a gown, put you in a clean bed and feed you. I would be thankful for such a person. By Western standards, that's not much, but for that "untouchable," being allowed to die with dignity, it would certainly be highly appreciated. Would he/she be better off? I think so. So, yes, I do view things differently.

48

"Mother" Teresa—a Fraud?

by Saename in

i often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.

moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.

i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.

Vidqun

I saw a documentary of her early days. She was so horrified at what was happening to the sickly and poor in Calcutta, she started helping them. She went against her own Mother Superior and some of the priests in charge. She was not popular and they opposed her all the way. As I said: There's always two sides to a story. Here the objective journalist would go to the poor people that received help from her missions. Always good to hear it from the horse's mouth first?