Post by rizdek on Jan 29, 2019 11:46:52 GMT
I don't think believing that life arose naturally and that evolution is a purely natural process means people don't have souls. I mean, if I was a theist who believed humans need souls to be complete and that God wanted people to have souls I'd assume God could work out that details of how to make that happen all the while depending on his natural creation to have produced the human bodies into which he placed those souls.
So setting the whole soul thing aside, I am not convinced that we know enough to state unequivocally that RNA could not have evolved from long chained precursor molecules that arose naturally. Just because they've been doing research for decades isn't proof that it won't ever happen. But even if it is never done in the lab, it is still not proof that it could not have happened in the hundreds of millions years after the earth formed and water began collecting on the earth's surface. But more importantly even if they managed to duplicate precisely how life formed...right down to the exact chemicals that formed and in what order, it would still not be proof that God does not exist or that God didn't create the matter and energy from which life self-organized.
I simply state the obvious. The "growth" of short, lifeless RNA chains into something living without assistance from an intelligent designer is not logical. Seeing the same thing over and over and expecting something different to happen has been suggested as a definition of insanity. It is only your vain hope that you can explain the origin of life yourself that keeps you so obstinate.
Like I said, showing that life could develop naturally would not prove God didn't exist. Nor does failure of experiments to produce something that is sufficiently living from natural materials suggest God must exist. As far as trying things over and over to accomplish something, consider:
In the period from 1878 to 1880 Edison and his associates worked on at least three thousand different theories to develop an efficient incandescent lamp. Incandescent lamps make light by using electricity to heat a thin strip of material (called a filament) until it gets hot enough to glow. Many inventors had tried to perfect incandescent lamps to "sub-divide" electric light or make it smaller and weaker than it was in the existing arc lamps, which were too bright to be used for small spaces such as the rooms of a house.
Edison's lamp would consist of a filament housed in a glass vacuum bulb. He had his own glass blowing shed where the fragile bulbs were carefully crafted for his experiments. Edison was trying to come up with a high resistance system that would require far less electrical power than was used for the arc lamps. This could eventually mean small electric lights suitable for home use.
Edison's lamp would consist of a filament housed in a glass vacuum bulb. He had his own glass blowing shed where the fragile bulbs were carefully crafted for his experiments. Edison was trying to come up with a high resistance system that would require far less electrical power than was used for the arc lamps. This could eventually mean small electric lights suitable for home use.
And, as for
" I have little interest in proving a god exists. Enough people believe sufficiently in and "fear" (are careful about) a god that there isn't much need for proof, and the people who do need it are not receptive anyway."
Yes, the vast majority of people believe in something they call God and for various reasons. God becomes a vague term that is malleable and molded into whatever someone wants it to be. But you realize that not all those definitions/descriptions are not the same as yours. So while you don't have to prove anything to get people to say they believe in God...whatever that means to them, you would be hard pressed and would likely fail to prove to them that YOUR specific version of God exists. The vast majority of people in the world would likely NOT be receptive to YOUR version of God.