Origin of Life (page 20)

konceptual99

Even if there was a clear replication of how life started tomorrow then it would still be in very controlled circumstances which, as memory serves me, JWs have already referred to and dismissed as (a) still needing the right set of circumstances and (b) a big difference between sparking life in a cell and the diversity and complexity of life as we see it now. Basically they simply move the goal posts to where they see the the God of the Gaps fitting once more.

You only have to look at how they treat far more well established scientific theories around things like human anthropology, Egyptian archaeology and flood geology to see how easily they bat away the direct contradictions to their theology.

Cofty is right - the basic teaching on life-force does give them a theological issue should the science on generating life get to the point of removing all the gaps. The question is if science is likely to get to this point to the extent that it would cause a major theological problem for Witnesses before the JW organisation collapses in on itself anyway?

prologos

Mephis: "angels collecting dust (or whichever inanimate materials are supposedly required) and making their own bodies to impregnate women.

good point I had not thought of that aspect, and how about the the body that Jesus is supposed to have materialized to convince Thomas. In these supposed cases, it was life, non-biological life, that manipulated the dust, the ground rock. If, when human - created life fires up, It would depend very much on the technical aspects to see how believers of various shades react.

Esse quam videri

Cofty " ...Science is still relatively new and the progress that has been made in the last century is astonishing.,.."

“ We're Destroying the Planet in Ways That Are Even Worse Than Global Warming ”
‘ … Humans are "eating away at our own life support systems" at a rate unseen in the past 10,000 years by degrading land and freshwater systems, emitting greenhouse gases and releasing vast amounts of agricultural chemicals into the environment, new research has found…’

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/humans-destorying-planet-earth

‘ Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF ‘
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

‘ Humans have destroyed 10% of Earth's wilderness in just 25 years ‘

http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-have-destroyed-10-of-earth-s-wilderness-in-just-25-years

‘ Stephen Hawking Warns Humanity Could Destroy Itself In The Next 100 Years ‘

http://www.iflscience.com/space/stephen-hawking-warns-humanity-could-destroy-itself-next-100-years/

Astonishing progress!

cofty

Memphis - The angels who made bodies for themselves already possessed the "spirit of life" - they were living spirits who changed form.

Same goes for the resurrected Jesus. In older publications it was taught that the life force was transmitted in the sperm. I doubt if they have repeated that gem for a long time but some similar assumption still applies. The official line is "life comes from life".

That puts test-tube babies in a totally different category from the creation of new life from rocks. The former is a technical challenge, the latter is a theological impossibility. The reason is the very same that rules out resurrecting the dead without god. Pneuma belongs to god alone.

That is why in the creationist brochure they are so careful to talk about scientists making all the components to assemble a cell. They do not talk about a living cell. It's typical Watchtower double-speak.

EQV - Please Google non-sequitur

John_Mann

Abiogenesis seems to be the origin of life. Or panspermia.

Evolution is the origin of species and the origin of animal minds (as explained in traducionism).

I believe in some point the Creator of the universe gave a soul to a couple of humanoids. This happened thousands of years ago (as explained by "the most recent ancestor" evolutionary concept).

Viviane

I believe in some point the Creator of the universe gave a soul to a couple of humanoids.

What is this "soul"? Where does it reside in the human body? Can we find it? What is it made of? Can it be surgically removed?

as explained by "the most recent ancestor" evolutionary concept

My most recent ancestors are my mother and father. How does that explain a soul?

slimboyfat

What is this "soul"? Where does it reside in the human body? Can we find it? What is it made of? Can it be surgically removed?

These questions suppose that only things with a physical location and a material composition exist. Just because such materialist reductionism is currently fashionable doesn't necessarily make it true. There are clearly some things without a physical location that do exist, such as the number 34, and human thoughts: dreams, realisations, computations, disappointments. Are souls among the things with no physical presence, yet nevertheless exist? Souls are not generally conceived as physical entities, so their existence or otherwise will not be settled by a surgical operation.

Asking where the soul is and what it is made of are rather stupid questions. One might even say obtuse or pseudo intellectual.

https://billdembski.com/documents/1999.10.spiritual_machines.htm

Viviane

These questions suppose that only things with a physical location and a material composition exist.

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. If it's in a human, it must be somewhere.

Besides, you're still stuck on your dishonesty from previous comments. Deal with that and then we can move on to your latest nonsense.

Asking where the soul is and what it is made of are rather stupid questions. One might even say obtuse or pseudo intellectual.

A convenient excuse for those that claim it exists in a specific place (in a human) and want to run away when the going gets tough.

Anyway, please resolve your previous dishonest before you attempt to deflect on this subject.

It always amuses me when people who have taken "Intro to Deepak Chopra's Deepitys 101" think they have an "a ha!" or gotcha moment that, with minimal effort, education and critical thinking can be resolved.

slimboyfat

No, I am talking about the challenges to materialism presented by Mary Midgley, Raymond Tallis, Thomas Nagel and others. Do you seriously think Deepak Chopra is the main intellectual challenge to materialism today? It might explain why you produce such naive "killer questions" as where is the soul and what is it made of.

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. If it's in a human, it must be somewhere.

Why "must"? You are apparently so committed to materialism you cannot possibly conceive of an answer outside its frame of reference. And once again, you finding something "ridiculous" does not constitute an argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/23/mary-midgley-philosopher-soul-human-consciousness
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2419/against-humanism
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/bringing-mind-to-matter

Phizzy

"minimal effort, education and critical thinking".

These were all things we either did not have, or were unwilling to do when we were JW's.

In the Internet age there simply is no excuse for perpetuating ignorance.

Thank you Cofty, Viv, et al who all help with my education, with my critical thinking skills, and very often save me the trouble of that "minimal effort" by showing me the way to go.

Long may believers continue to Post here, to show the paucity of their arguments and proofs, and long may the excellent Posters who show them up continue to Post !

Origin of Life

Share this