Read Genesis again: “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…”. The dust/clay/earth brought forth land animals, just as the waters brought forth fish and birds. The “breath” was specifically for human life. Other life did not require the breath, just non-living chemicals, such as water.
Why didn’t you just say “take an organism and kill it”? You have used so much energy to explain nothing. If you take an organism and stop its Biochemical process (Biochemical processes are chemical processes that are supported by life) then what you remain with is just mere chemical process with no life.
God created living things. Creation of living things involves God giving His life to those living things.
Nope. All life draws from God
Was somebody denying that? There was no life and then He made it. From lifeless material. It says exactly that in Genesis. What on earth are you arguing for?Freddy:
God created living things. Creation of living things involves God giving His life to those living things.
That’s not what Genesis says. Life was there in abundance even before creation but in the form of God’s spirit. Creation is just a transformation of God’s spirit.
Before commenting, I’ll point out Noose is non-demoninational. The ordinary point some try to make is that the natural order on it’s own isn’t sufficient to explain the origin of life, and that it would require an additional (name removed by moderator)ut not included in the rest of the natural order from God for life to arise. For those who make this point, the traditional concern for the “leap” to life (any life) is the leap from transient causes in non-living things to immanent causality in living things, though a much more nuanced point on that could be discussed.Noose001:
Was somebody denying that? There was no life and then He made it. From lifeless material. It says exactly that in Genesis. What on earth are you arguing for?Freddy:
God created living things. Creation of living things involves God giving His life to those living things.
Some of us are simply trying to work out how He did it.
Life is a
Two points on this. I don’t know about Noose, but vitalism isn’t the only path to take here.
Life creates the universe not the other way. God creates through human consciousness and reality is only our perception. This is what the bible says and this is why humans are of high regard, being in God’s image.
Because what is left after my process is your ‘life’. You are projecting ‘life’ as a separate thing from the components of the body. It is not, as is shown by removing all the material elements from, say, an earthworm. Life is an emergent property; it has no existence apart from its components.
That is your claim. My scriptures say differently.
The planet earth is physical, not spiritual. Are you telling us that God did not create the planet earth?
I’m good with that. I don’t believe it, but I have no problem in someone accepting that. Like almost everyone in this forum. But that there were inorganic materials and then later there was life is a statement on which we can all agree.Freddy:
Before commenting, I’ll point out Noose is non-demoninational. The ordinary point some try to make is that the natural order on it’s own isn’t sufficient to explain the origin of life, and that it would require an additional (name removed by moderator)ut not included in the rest of the natural order from God for life to arise.Noose001:
Was somebody denying that? There was no life and then He made it. From lifeless material. It says exactly that in Genesis. What on earth are you arguing for?Freddy:
God created living things. Creation of living things involves God giving His life to those living things.
Some of us are simply trying to work out how He did it.
The contention between different faith is usually about the nature of God and not godliness. Godliness being the work of God or what He does is mysterious.
No.
Well, aren’t we more than the bag of chemicals from which we are made?rossum:
Two points on this. I don’t know about Noose, but vitalism isn’t the only path to take here.
The other point is that you seem to equate emergent properties with the sum of the parts. But the reason we have the term emergent property is for properties that are more than the sum of parts.
Be very very careful about trying to fit your God into a gap in science. Science works very hard to close those gaps, making any gods fitted into those gaps smaller as well.
Correct. Otherwise not is not “emergent”, since it is already present in the parts. The property of being liquid at room temperature is not present in either pure hydrogen or pure oxygen. However that property is present in water. It is emergent because it is present when the parts are combined, but not present in any of the parts individually.
Someone just gave a good example; the difference between a living dog and dead one is life and not the components. A freshly dead dog has all the components similar to a living one.
And this is where we need to be careful. Physical things are the way they are because we observe them. A surface is hard, soft, rough because we experience such. Roughness means nothing to a lifeless being.