Can you handle the Truth?

Started by Shakyamunison432 pages

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But chemicals do not create life they simply sustain or maintain it in this physical world.

But no scientist can create life because what gives life to a physical body is the spirit from God.

That is your belief, however, there is no proof to support it.

I believe that life is all around us. One day we will create life, but what we will really do doing is creating the conditions for life. I believe that life is natural.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But chemicals do not create life they simply sustain or maintain it in this physical world.

But no scientist can create life because what gives life to a physical body is the spirit from God.

So, you are saying that to be alive you have to have a soul. Therefore every living thing must, by your logic, have a soul, right? That is Animals, plants, bacteria, and cells all have souls since all are alive.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Dead bodies contain chemicals too. But the body without the spirit is dead.

1. There is no evidence of this, therefore, its just back to you beliefs, not FACTS

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But no scientist can create life because what gives life to a physical body is the spirit from God.

Fact: Scientists have created life.

Conclusion: God must endorse science?

Originally posted by Ordo
1. There is no evidence of this, therefore, its just back to you beliefs, not FACTS

Fact: Scientists have created life.

Conclusion: God must endorse science?

A virus is not life.

Question: which came first the chicken or the egg?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
A virus is not life.

Question: which came first the chicken or the egg?

Why is a virus not life?

The egg came first, because fish have eggs, and fish were around long before chickens. Chickens came from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs came from reptiles, and reptiles came from fish.

Originally posted by King Kandy
False. It is constructed by chemical processes just as everything else biological is.

Fact: No scientist has succeeded in creating RNA (no RNA components don't count).

Fact: No scientist has succeeded in creating life.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Fact: No scientist has succeeded in creating RNA (no RNA components don't count).

Fact: No scientist has succeeded in creating life.

Before 1969 no man ever steeped foot on the moon. You are putting too much weight on those flimsy "facts" of yours.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why is a virus not life?

The egg came first, because fish have eggs, and fish were around long before chickens. Chickens came from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs came from reptiles, and reptiles came from fish.

Virus are not life because they do not metabolise and require a host cell to make copies of themselves.

Question: which came first genes or proteins, proteins or genes?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Virus are not life because they do not metabolise and require a host cell to make copies of themselves.

Question: which came first genes or proteins, proteins or genes?

Then what is a virus? A virus is not dead, because we can kill a virus. Can you kill a rock?

Just because the answer to a question is not known does not mean that you can arbitrarily place your beliefs as the answer.

What does a lobster feel when it sees a ship wreck on the ocean floor? The answer is unknown.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then what is a virus? A virus is not dead, because we can kill a virus. Can you kill a rock?

Just because the answer to a question is not known does not mean that you can arbitrarily place your beliefs as the answer.

What does a lobster feel when it sees a ship wreck on the ocean floor? The answer is unknown.

"Viruses are most often considered replicators rather than forms of life. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life","

--Rybicki EP (1990) "The classification of organisms at the edge of life, or problems with virus systematics." S Aft J Sci 86:182–186

So you are surrounded by intelligent life and yet you believe that it came from unintelligent, inorganic, matter?

Originally posted by Ordo
1. There is no evidence of this, therefore, its just back to you beliefs, not FACTS

Fact: Scientists have created life.

Conclusion: God must endorse science?

You are reaching. No scientist has at anytime created life. No bacteria do not count.

Besides taking preexistent materials created by God to manufacture synthetic life still does not constitute creating life.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
"Viruses are most often considered replicators rather than forms of life. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life","

--Rybicki EP (1990) "The classification of organisms at the edge of life, or problems with virus systematics." S Aft J Sci 86:182–186

So you are surrounded by intelligent life and yet you believe that it came from unintelligent, inorganic, matter?

Maybe life started on this so called "edge of life". So far you have showed me that there are three things in the world, and not just two.

1. Life
2. Non-life
3. "organisms at the edge of life"

If there are 3, and not 2, then maybe there are more.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are reaching. No scientist has at anytime created life. No bacteria do not count.

Besides taking preexistent materials created by God to manufacture synthetic life still does not constitute creating life.

Now bacteria don't count as life? 😱 Next you are going to tell me that a dog is not alive. 😆

Originally posted by Ordo
1. There is no evidence of this, therefore, its just back to you beliefs, not FACTS

Fact: Scientists have created life.

Conclusion: God must endorse science?

You are reaching. No scientist has at anytime created life. No bacteria do not count.

Besides taking preexistent materials created by God to manufacture synthetic life still does not constitute creating life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now bacteria don't count as life? 😱 Next you are going to tell me that a dog is not alive. 😆

^ 😄

With all due respect Shakyamunison you have already answered this post how about giving someone else a chance to answer? I don't think that it is fair to keep responding to a post that is not addressed to you. But then again you are free to do so.

Originally posted by Ordo
1. There is no evidence of this, therefore, its just back to you beliefs, not FACTS

Fact: Scientists have created life.

Conclusion: God must endorse science?

You are reaching. No scientist has at anytime created life. No bacteria do not count.

Besides taking preexistent materials created by God to manufacture synthetic life still does not constitute creating life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If there are 3, and not 2, then maybe there are more.

Indeed. Protobionts are another good example.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
With all due respect Shakyamunison you have already answered this post how about giving someone else a chance to answer? I don't think that it is fair to keep responding to a post that is not addressed to you. But then again you are free to do so.

You are reaching. No scientist has at anytime created life. No bacteria do not count.

Besides taking preexistent materials created by God to manufacture synthetic life still does not constitute creating life.

People can answer any time they like. In no way am I stopping anyone.

However, you have not answered my questions.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are reaching. No scientist has at anytime created life. No bacteria do not count.

Besides taking preexistent materials created by God to manufacture synthetic life still does not constitute creating life.

Why does bacteria not count?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Why does bacteria not count?

Because it is not like plant and animal cells.