Producing life from non living matter

[FearGod]

If you really fail to see the connection here, you have a fundamental lack of understanding of what it is you are asking.

That isn't my problem, answer the question than asking questions.

 

[FearGod]

Right. Define 'living creature' for the purposes of this challenge.

Do you count viruses? Do you count prions? Do you count mitochondria and chloroplasts? If not, do you count cyanobacteria?

The challenge was very simple, a little fly, not even a human.

 

[Kirran]

That isn't my problem, answer the question than asking questions.

It's not a follow-up question FearGod, it's a question to clarify what it is you're actually asking.

The challenge was very simple, a little fly, not even a human.

It has to be a fly? It can't be another life form, like a bacterium?

 

[TheTruthGivingDragon]

A speck of life was create by the dragon of spirit in contribution of all the dragons. single cell life is not that hard to make our of the creatures on our scales but introducing them in a controled environment with a bit of chaos so they can evolve was the trick, as for humans a cursed fake god invaded and took the pig things that evolved and made them into white humans and took the color of bears and made darker skinned humans. that explains why humans re destructive. they can't claim "invasive" or "overpopulated" because only humans fit that catagory

 

[FearGod]

Yes - but the premise is the same.

"I can't make a Tree on my own. Therefore, Pan must exist."

Would that be a good argument, in your eyes?

If that makes sense to you, but to me God has no figure and we know nothing about what is God's nature.
I'm talking about the creator of the universe, names has no value to my understanding.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I didn't make the challenge, God made it knowing that we'll never do it.

Curious, then, that your god can never make such challenges without relying on humans to write them down for him. Even so, I'll change the impetus of my statement.

"So in defence of your god's Kent Hovind challenge, you deploy this cop-out."

Happy?

Don't you see how silly it's when believing that the unconscious nature did it while we claim
that we don't have the knowledge yet to do it?

Not really. We didn't know how to immunise ourselves against disease but it has been occurring naturally for far longer than that - an example is the resistance European humans had against diseases in their society, yet that First Nations humans, having never encountered such illnesses, had no defence against.

It has to be a fly? It can't be another life form, like a bacterium?

Isn't it curious how the standard for passing this test is 'create the smallest life form the Arabs were aware of rather than the smallest life-form that actually exists'?

 

[LuisDantas]

While we have knowledge and minds and still we can't create a living creature, but the unconscious nature did it.

"Did it" is quite the forceful interpretation, though. Presuming a conscious creator is the very definition of "strong bias".

What makes you that certain and sure?

Why, are you doubting my authority? My feelings are hurt.

Seriously now : if you are obsessed with the idea of a creator God, it is hardly my fault that the world is not helping in support such a belief. If you want to have my support anyway, then you should ask yourself how come you have such abusive expectations.

 

[FearGod]

It's not a follow-up question FearGod, it's a question to clarify what it is you're actually asking.

It isn't me asking, the challenge was of God.

It has to be a fly? It can't be another life form, like a bacterium?

Should I ask God if that is possible?

 

[Kirran]

It isn't me asking, the challenge was of God.

Fine, to clarify the challenge in the Qur'an then. Why is it so unclear?

Should I ask God if that is possible?

If you like.

You still haven't provided any clarity.

Does the challenge require people to make a fly? Or can it be something else? Bacterium, bee, walrus, spinach?

 

[FearGod]

Curious, then, that your god can never make such challenges without relying on humans to write them down for him. Even so, I'll change the impetus of my statement.

"So in defence of your god's Kent Hovind challenge, you deploy this cop-out."

Happy?

Sorry, still you have no point.

Not really. We didn't know how to immunise ourselves against disease but it has been occurring naturally for far longer than that - an example is the resistance European humans had against diseases in their society, yet that First Nations humans, having never encountered such illnesses, had no defence against.

But God didn't make such challenge of immunizing ourselves from specific diseases, if he did
then I'll agree that his challenge failed, the challenge was simple and clear.

Isn't it curious how the standard for passing this test is 'create the smallest life form the Arabs were aware of rather than the smallest life-form that actually exists'?

God mentioned that he created unseen creatures as well.

 

[FearGod]

Fine, to clarify the challenge in the Qur'an then. Why is it so unclear?



If you like.

You still haven't provided any clarity.

Does the challenge require people to make a fly? Or can it be something else? Bacterium, bee, walrus, spinach?

The challenge was creating a fly, don't you think the fly is a product from the nature,
why then we can't use the elements in our nature to create a fly from scratch?

 

[Kirran]

The challenge was creating a fly, don't you think the fly is a product from the nature,
why then we can't use the elements in our nature to create a fly from scratch?

Ah, I see, so your question is not about 'producing life from non-living matter' but about 'producing a fly from non-living matter'!

Well technological progress hasn't reached that stage yet. It may well do so at some point, we'll have to see. We certainly have made steps in that direction.

 

[james bond]

If life wasn't a product done by a creator, then what prevents us from creating it
the same way as it has been done by the unconscious nature.

This challenge was offered by God thousands years ago, as to create living creatures, can we?

>>what prevents us from creating it<<

I recently got a different view of this through medical science. US medical science only recognizes the brain and body as that what is necessary for life. They have the view that once life starts, then it is purely the physical brain and body that keeps it going. There is constant debate going on as to whether the mind controls the body and to a lesser extent whether the spirit is present in the body. Thus, we have to understand what life is from the beginning. The view from medical science is that life started with an amoeba or some protozoa. How did the protozoa start is another matter. Then we have what makes the brain and body to live. We cannot bring back someone from the dead just by replacing parts of the body or replacing the brain. So, the second part to life questions what is that which gives life to a body? If the spirit isn't recognized, then there has to be something else that provides life.

In a general way, the above explains the state of affairs with medical science. As for what that science is focusing on, I don't think they're focusing on the above. What they're doing is how can we make the brain and body last longer and be better, i.e. be healthier. How can we cure the brain and body of disease and illness? There's money to be made doing this while we await some breakthrough, i.e. luck, in a field which isn't as lucrative. I mean who's going to fund you if you want to create a protozoa from some chemicals or if you want to bring a body back from the dead? Good luck trying to get seed money for that ha ha.

The above is what's important to the atheists here in that this is all there is and all there will be.

Unbeknownst to them, what you ask is the important question even though it's not lucrative. This life isn't all there is and is the illusion. That's why you can't take your money and possessions with you when you die.

 

[FearGod]

Ah, I see, so your question is not about 'producing life from non-living matter' but about 'producing a fly from non-living matter'!

Well technological progress hasn't reached that stage yet. It may well do so at some point, we'll have to see. We certainly have made steps in that direction.

That was the title, but yes the challenge is creating a living creature and that was a fly.

 

[Kirran]

That was the title, but yes the challenge is creating a living creature and that was a fly.

Well you need to be specific. There are living creatures which are much easier to create than flies. We've already done so. We've created new bacterial species, we've produced bacteria from different components, etc. Once scientists master that they can move ahead to multicellular organisms, if they're motivated to.

 

[FearGod]

Well you need to be specific. There are living creatures which are much easier to create than flies. We've already done so. We've created new bacterial species, we've produced bacteria from different components, etc. Once scientists master that they can move ahead to multicellular organisms, if they're motivated to.

They actually used a living cells, so it wasn't from scratch, IOW they did never created any forms
of life from non living matter.

 

[Quintessence]

Something I have trouble understanding is why creating some human conception of "life" is such a benchmark of note. It doesn't seem so to me, perhaps because of my perspective as an animist. Creation and destruction are happening in tandem all the time... and all of the Weave (including humans) participates in that process. What makes the human concept of life so special?

 

[Kirran]

They actually used a living cells, so it wasn't from scratch, IOW they did never created any forms
of life from non living matter.

Well they used components such as DNA and protein-lipid bubbles, which are non-living in isolation.

 

[FearGod]

Well they used components such as DNA and protein-lipid bubbles, which are non-living in isolation.

But they used a living cell, so they didn't create life itself.

 

[Kirran]

But they used a living cell, so they didn't create life itself.

That is incorrect. They used components derived from living cells, which were not themselves living.