Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    It also says that scientists may succeed in creating life at some point in the future. - SBF

    For the fifth time no it absolutely does not.

    You have repeated this lie so many times now. Why?

  • cofty

    I'm busy so I will explain it to you later - again.

    For the moment - making all the components for a radio is a really complex task. Assembling them correctly to make a radio is also very complex.

    Even if/when you succeed all you have is a box with a plug. Unless you can connect it to the electric supply it is useless.

    If scientists can make all the parts of a cell and assemble them into a cell that will be astonishing. The bit they don't say in the "science" brochure for obvious reasons, is that the cell will be lifeless. Pneuma belongs to god. That is what makes it a theological impossibility.

    That is why they studiously avoid stating that scientist may one day make a LIVING cell.

  • prologos


    9 hours ago

    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.

    The resurrection of the mythological Jesus, according to wt writers must have been a two step process, 1) a giving to him of immortality, and 'second Adam,' life-giving spirit, and 2) him then "materialising" a fake human body from scratch. A hybrid body that could penetrate walls.

    The pre-deluvian angels turned demons being able to create organic bodies from scratch, in fact endowing satan's followers with the gift of life giving, allows for wt to claim.-- when scientific abiogenesis happens, that this system , Satan's, still exercises that longstanding power. nothing "materialistic only"about it. in their possible view. That is why How it is going to happen will shape creationist's response.

  • cofty
    in fact endowing satan's followers with the gift of life giving

    This is the bit I don't get.

  • cofty

    SBF show me the quote where is explicitly says scientists might create a "LIVING cell".

    Put up or shut up.

  • prologos
    C: "in fact endowing satan's followers with the gift of life giving,-- I don't get.

    The wt version of the bible flood story has the fallen immaterial "sons" of god "materialize" , or create human flesh&blood to cohabit with the gorgeous, near perfect females. The newly created males were ready to pass on life. so: does that not mean God had granted to others, the angels live-creating and passing-on capacity (this strain of life was different from Adam's genetics package)? of course this is all bollocks, but fodder for the gullible, and a continuing argument in wt's options to deal with the inevitable.

  • cofty

    I think the only principle that matters is "life begets life".

    Life emerging from rocks transgresses this fundamental JW and christian doctrine.

  • prologos

    It would be a real shame if a unique event, like a solar flare of a certain frequency agitated the pre-bio compounds into firing up the energy gradient use, the inheritance scenario, and-- the inability to find and replicated it (even if you have all the ingredients right) for a long time, will be interpreted as only "God did it directly" --see!

  • slimboyfat
    sigh*... I know logic is hard, but try.
    First, they don't say that scientist may succeed one day. They say "Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident?"
    That does not in any way say "may", it says "if". It's similar to saying "Humans will never be able to shoot laser beams from their eyes, but if they could, that would be terrible." The latter hypothetical doesn't negate the former.
    How do we know that "if" and "may" are different? Try replacing them in a sentence. "If you go outside, then you will be cold" doesn't make sense as "May you go outside, then you will be cold". Similarly, "you can go to the movies if you finish your homework" doesn't make sense as "you can go to the movies may you finish your homework".
    The hypothetical "if" (not may) does not negate their teaching that God is the only source of life.
    Evidence is so inconvenient.
    LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE. “With you [God] is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.
    PROTIP: If you are going to link to a doc to prove your point, actually know what it says and what the words mean.

    Okay, well that's embarrassing.

    Until this exchange I had a vague impression of someone who was arrogant but intelligent. Now I realise only one of those.

  • Viviane

    Oh SBF! Don't be silly! You don't need to be embarrassed for being vague and then lashing out. It's all you can do when facts, reality, evidence, grammar, honesty, language and logic aren't on your side. Well, all you can do if you aren't adult enough to admit any of that.

    You should be no more embarrassed than a puppy that wets itself when confronted by a kitten.

    /Cleanup on aisle 3

Share this