God and the Bible are the only relevant terms to enter this discussion. If you think otherwise, show me the life you have created, otherwise you are just waving a magic wand, hoping to connect to something you do not understand.
If you heard that scientists created life in the lab would you conclude that they used some dark magic without knowing any of the details of the experiment?
3 Likes
If such a thing occurred the details would be in every media story, every household, so your question imposes a false dilemma. Everybody would know every detail. And every detail would include some kind of dark magic.
But if you live long enough, you will get to witness it anyway when the 2nd beast gives life to the image of the 1st beast.
Yes he would. Its all a satanic ploy by the antichrist scientists to lead the sons of men astray.
So you wonāt even consider that you might be wrong? You are completely close-minded on this subject?
I am asking you the same question.
Edit: I am doing better than you however. I actually gave an historical example of my premise, and a futuristic prophecy. What have you brought to the table?
But I have the best Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher in the bizā¦
2 Likes
No one here is still taking @r_speir seriously, are they?
4 Likes
I need dark magic to save me from
the brain cancer he is giving me.
2 Likes
He only teaches Potions. DADA has more problems than Spinal Tap had drummers.
1 Like
No - God made everything and gives it life. We can explain everything by natural mechanism because there is order in the world because God made it that way.
I am not scared. I would just like for you to realize that your worldview makes little sense to me. When I read through the history of abiogenesis research, I honestly thought it was really pathetic and actually embarrassing. I had listened to a few videos of Dr. James Tour criticizing it, but it was much worse than I had thought.
This was the article I had read: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
And after the article states, well, scientists have decided well, actually protocells need to have everything āall at onceā even though they havenāt gotten close to that, it says this:
Some of the people alive today will become the first in history who can honestly say they know where they came from. They will know what their ultimate ancestor was like and where it lived.
I donāt evenā¦
What did you read?
Edit: wait a minute. You are basing your conclusion on a popular level bbc article?
2 Likes
Yes, the question is then whether God gave humans the ability to animate non-living ingredients into a living organism, and if they will ever be able to do so in a lab. I would say itās not likely and would tend to agree with @r_speir that itās dabbling in the occult. Frankenstein is a cautionary tale.
Please share what it missed if you feel like. This thread was spun off an article showing that computers have mapped out chemical processes. So Iām assuming that popular article still hit most of the highlights of the last 100 years.
So I read and skimmed the available text in the Look Inside. Here is the cognitive dissonance thatās āhiddenā in the text among all the scientism storytelling.
No - God made everything and gives it life.
Sure you could make this argument, but it is riddled with unsupported assertions. How do you know God made everything? If God did make everything, is it Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Jehovah that did it?
We can explain everything by natural mechanism because there is order in the world because God made it that way.
You obviously did not understand my point on this. If we figure out how life arose naturally, that makes God irrelevant, since we would no longer need him to explain life anymore. If you lived in the dark ages, you might have believed that sicknesses like epilepsy were caused by demons who possess their victims in an episodic fashion and that it could be relieved through prayers. Fast forward to our time, such explanations have become moribund, as we now know more about neurological disorders. Its seems you have forgotten YECs claim that evolution promotes unbelief in God, as well as immorality, why? Its because you explain the amazing biodiversity of life without mentioning or even thinking of God. If OoL research pans out, it would be a big win for naturalism.
When I read through the history of abiogenesis research, I honestly thought it was really pathetic and actually embarrassing
In what way is abiogenesis pathetic and embarrasing?
I had listened to a few videos of Dr. James Tour criticizing it, but it was much worse than I had thought.
Why should we care what James Tour says? How do you know its much worse than you thought, considering you donāt do any abiogenesis research yourself?
And after the article states, well, scientists have decided well, actually protocells need to have everything āall at onceā even though they havenāt gotten close to that, it says this:
Um is this BBC article peer-reviewed?
Iād point you to several arguments Iāve already made on the forum that logic rules out every other god but the God of Christianity and that the resurrection of Jesus is the best historical explanation of how Christianity began.
Your point seems contradictory here. You think I explain the biodiversity of life without thinking of God?
Heās a chemist.
By observing and reading.
No, I assume not.
Iād point you to several arguments Iāve already made on the forum that logic rules out every other god but the God of Christianity
Oh really, please share the forum link. I really need to see how you logically ruled out the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and most merciful Allah.
Your point seems contradictory here. You think I explain the biodiversity of life without thinking of God?
You did not get my point there. Prior to Darwin putting out evolution to the world, most scientists and non-scientists could not talk about biodiversity without attributing itās cause to a divine being. They were essentially special creationists. Enter evolutionary theory, we can now talk about biodiversity without recourse to a divine being or supernatural causes. Evolution rendered supernatural causes irrelevant. And if a supernatural explanation involves the Christian God, that means he is irrelevant to discussions about biodiversity (except, of course, in theological circles or discussions).
Heās a chemist.
And so? I am a biochemist (not practicing though, yet) but you donāt take my words or those of other highly experienced chemists working on the OoL problem. Anyway James Tour still allows for the possibility of scientists discovering a naturalistic explanation for the OoL
By observing and reading.
Cite some peer-reviewed articles that support your claim that OoL research has gotten much worse.
No, I assume not.
Good.