Can we create a living organism by putting non-living elements together


#1

Can we create a living organism by putting non-living elements together?

What if we truly make it in the future, does it prove that theism is wrong but materialism is correct?


#2

Would it have a soul?


#3

It has already been done. There were quite a few experiments, where inorganic material structured itself into “living” organisms. “Life” is not really mysterious. It is just the homeostasis of maintaining its structure in a changing environment.

These experiments did not “invalidate” theism, or validate materialism, per se. They simply showed that abiogenesis does not require a “divine” action. So one more need for the “God of the gaps” was shown to be superfluous.


#4

Using the most intelligent scientists and the most intelligently designed laboratories, life has not been created from chemicals. However, with more intelligent input in the future there is no reason why we couldn’t create at least a plant cell.

This would only reinforce the Genesis account of creation, since it took an intelligent force to do it the first time and only in a day. Since science has shown that it can’t happen NATURALLY, then the faith of the athiest/materialist is callenged.

What the materialist needs to demonstrate is where it is happening NATURALLY.


#5

Reality is made up of various patterns or structures, which correspond to particulor qualities.
The soul exists simultaneously, and corresponds, to a structure or pattern embedded in nature, which God has decided to be representive of a living person.
It is automatic. Human beings aid and abet in the creation of a person everytime they make a baby. So it is possible that if we recreate the pattern or structure that is representitive of a person, what we will be left with will in fact be a person.

Behind every pattern is an eternal idea that has the pontential, at any given time, to become a physical objects in space-time, which are themselves expressions of a fundemental Idea. Some ideas are fundemetal; and others are contingent in the sense that a new idea can emerge through a mixture of many fundemental ideas, and this mixing is expressed, or made able, through the unification of various “physical patterns” in nature; which is achieved through the process of evolution. Through this method, the Universe is partly designing itself in terms of structure and pattern—giving birth to new forms and ideas.

God is the only kind of being that can account for the qualities found in patterns and structures.


#6

atiesta,

No offense intended, but that gave me a good chuckle. :stuck_out_tongue:

I wonder how you would explain “love” if you wrote hallmark cards.:wink:

To my Wife on Our Anniverssary,

The impingement of your form on my optic nerve creates a cascade of biochemical processes in my nervous system and creates in me a powerful predilection for your proximity. Although this process is present mainly due to the evolutionary advantage it grants our species, one may call it (nominally, of course) “love.”

Always,
Your husband.

You romantic, you.

VC


#7

No offense taken! I love your greeting card. :slight_smile:

Moreover, your definition of love is correct. Love is a biochemical process, a very powerful emotion. Measurements show that the brain produces many chemicals, some of which are surprisingly similar to the chemicals induced by taking certain subscances.

For example, the chemicals produced when one freshly falls in love are almost identical to the “rush” one can feel when taking cocaine. There are people who get addicted to this, and cannot settle down with one partner. As soon as the “rush” goes away, they change partners.

On the other hand, the chemicals produced by the “old” love of steady partners is very similar to the efffects of heroin. Soothing, comforting and long lasting feelings develop.

This is not demeaning to love at all. It is still a very precious feeling.


#8

The answer is no.

God bless,
Ed


#9

Example please.

Thank you,
Ed


#10

You’re right! (And I don’t know any scientists who would disagree. :wink: )


#11

That’s not answering the question.

The question is,

Can we create a living organism by putting non-living elements together


#12

that would depend on how you define living vs non-living.

are atoms and particles dead?


#13

Atoms and particles are dead.

Peace,
Ed


#14

wow, ok. an answer coming from you
was all i needed in life.


#15

God is immune to rules and needs. How would a scientific discovery disprove His existence?

Furthermore, unless scientists can create souls (an act only God can do, by the way), it won’t prove God dosen’t exist.


#16

Hi, all
Two scientists were in a lab, trying to create life, finally one said to the other I found it ! Its ordinary dirt the link to making life; great said the other scientist, lets do it ! Well anyway they went outside to grab some of the material they needed to create life; When all of a sudden there was a crack of thunder and a voice from a cloud saying get your own dirt.

Thought this old story approiate.

Peace, OneNow1


#17

you didn’t finish the story.
so one scientist said it was God that spoke
and the other said it was Allah, and they
ended up killing each other. The end.


#18

Or at least has failed to demonstrate that it has… except:

Aren’t humans part of nature? So wouldn’t anything we make have a natural cause?


#19

Alternative ending:

So one science said it was God that spoke
And the other said they agreed, it was Allah
And they ended up as best friends forever. The end.


#20

Actually they knew who it was and went to the local bar to get some spirits .:slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.