Origin of Life

by cofty 405 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Ruby456

  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.vidqun
  

  thats a common sense view but what puts this view under pressure is the population of viruses that we have. are they alive or dead?

  but I agree that functionalism is part of defining what is alive and what isn't. on the other hand I think life and non life are continuous rather than dichotomous. perhaps this is what creation accounts are trying to get at? that life and death are continuous rather than opposites
• 

  cofty

  .. and here lies the real motive of threads like these. To bicker with and poke at those who don't see things the way you do. - Sanchy

  It is very dishonest of you to characterise my motives in that way. I am currently reading about some of the most fascinating research that is going on right now into the origin-of-life. This is a religious discussion forum. I want to discuss the theological implications of that research. With the exception of my obvious contempt for postmodernist answers my tone to believers has been respectful, patient and helpful.

  I didn't realise you had been appointed monitor of what topics are permitted.

  They might be hoping for it to not happen, but you as well are wishing for the opposite, so what's the point? It hasn't happened yet, and until it does, they have as much right to doubt it as you do to wish it.

  That is a false equivalence. Believers are hopeful it will never happen despite the evidence to the contrary. I believe it will because of the evidence. Until it does we can converse about the current state of the research and it's possible implications - if that's alright with Sanchy?

  Sparking new life in a laboratory just proves intelligent beings can spark new life - FHN

  I think this is a common misunderstanding and one of the main reasons I started the thread.

  The research into origin-of-life is NOT about "making" or "sparking" life. It is about setting up conditions that existed on a prebiotic earth an observing if life happens. If it does no intelligent being will have made anything. It will simply prove that life happened 4 billion years ago through entirely naturalistic means. No intelligent designer was ever needed. It will also show that the universe is probably teeming with bacterial-like life on other planets that have water, rock and carbon dioxide.
  
• 

  cofty

  Until man can create a walking talking human with a consciousness from scratch, no cheating, l will never ever believe in evolution. - automant

  This thread is not about evolution automant. Evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt.

  This thread is about how life began on earth 4 billion years ago. If scientists could show how it happened "all by itself" would you be able to accommodate that data into your christian worldview? What difference would it make?

  Are you 100% sure it will never happen? Vidqun seems to be moving from being certain that is can't happen towards "not-in-my-lifetime".

  One of the questions to consider is whether it will or won't happen because it's just too technically difficult or because it can't happen. As a former christian I would have believed that it can't happen because I viewed life as something that only emanated from god. Some believers in this thread seem less sure of that.

  That really is the point of the thread.
  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Ruby, as stated before in this thread, I believe its our definition of death are due for a drastic makeover. Some view viruses as encapsulated rogue DNA/RNA strands, but they are much more than that. Though inert, they are alive alright. As you said, their potential functionalism should define their living or dead status.

  Because they can only make use of the equipment of living cells to replicate themselves, they are called obligatory intracellular parasites. Here are some illustrations of a T-even bacteriophage (host: E. coli) and its life cycle. It resembles a syringe, somewhat more complicated than our plastic variety, and is species specific. Again the chicken and egg question: Which of the two came first?

  I find it hard to imagine that it would develop spontaneously by itself. Before anyone asks: Yes, I do believe viruses were designed and that with a fully functional, optimally tuned immune system, one would be able to resist any viral or bacterial attack.

  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  And here's the life cycle.

  
  
• 

  cofty

  Vidqun before we get distracted by yet another argument from complexity could I bring you back to this question...

  One of the questions to consider is whether it (origin of life in the lab) will or won't happen because it's just too technically difficult or because it can't happen. As a former christian I would have believed that it can't happen because I viewed life as something that only emanated from god. Some believers in this thread seem less sure of that.
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Cofty, with the speed of technological advancement and regular scientific breakthroughs, nothing is impossible. The sky is the limit. But I am not sure man is going to be allowed to go all the way. Then he would be a god. And with being a god, comes responsibility. Man has proved his irresponsibility over and over again. So yes, it's not impossible, but I don't see mankind being allowed the leeway to develop to such an extent that he becomes a danger to himself and all living things on the planet. Is it Chris Rea that sang: "The Road to Hell." If man carres on the way he's going, we will end up in a Mad Max scenario. Not sure whether that was what God had in mind. Somehow, I don't think so.
• 

  cofty

  nothing is impossible ... I am not sure man is going to be allowed to go all the way ... So yes, it's not impossible

  So unless god intervenes man might be able to demonstrate that life is nothing more than a naturalistic process.

  As a christian I would have disagreed with that. I believed "life" was a force or energy, the "spirit" that originated with god alone. "With you is the source of life".

  You seem to be admitting otherwise.
  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  No Cofty, I don't believe the spirit or life force in a living organism is mysterious at all. While all the processes in your body function as they should, you are alive. When one or more fail, you die. God is the source of life in the sense that he originated and kickstarted all the processes that sustain life. The organism must take it from there, supplying nutrients and water to keep the said processes going.

  I go for the rule: Life begets life. In addition, man has been bequeathed with a magnificent brain, superior to the animals. In that sense man was made in God's image. If God could create life, so could man. It's just a question of time. The question is: Would he be allowed the time to do it?
• 

  Xanthippe

  As a former christian I would have believed that it can't happen because I viewed life as something that only emanated from god. Some believers in this thread seem less sure of that.

  Perhaps born again evangelical Christians see things differently to mainstream Christians. I found them to be different to the mainstream on FS, a bit OTT actually. One got on his knees begging me to be born again. Time for a sharp exit.

  There are many Christian viewpoints about the origin of life I would think.