Is man part of nature?

[romansh]

Just going through some earlier posts again:

Originally Posted by Seth

You've already accepted that Christianity is false, therefore anything you see will be taken as further evidence that this is the case.

Surprisingly I think your assertion here is false. I just happen to think your interpretation of Christianity is highly erroneous. (accepted as false?). There are other interpretations of Christianity that are much closer to the mark, eg retired Bishop Spong's

Originally Posted by Seth

I've already accepted that Christianity is the truth and am sort of working my way back from there. It may seem as bassackwards way of doing things, but to me the most important thing is accepting the central message of Christianity. Everything else is sort of a secondary truth to that I suppose.

Are you saying you are set in your ways and no amount of evidence will change your mind?

Originally Posted by Bill

May your trip be fruitful or very pleasant, depending upon whether it is for business or pleasure.

Maybe serendipity will kick in, and it will turn out to be both. That would be nice.

Thanks Bill - pleasure - a quick tour of some of the wineries in the Okanagan. Mostly on bicycles. Fermented fruitful.

So Seth thinks man is god-made and therefore not part of nature, so nothing man does is natural. But the universe is god-made too, at least by some accounts. So Seth you don't get off that easily.

Just curious what everyone else thinks?

[godmachine]

The experiments that have been used to recreate these organic compounds are based off the idea that the earth was continuously going through cycles of heating, evaporation, condensation & precipitation.

To the best of my knowledge nothing resembling "life" has ever been produced from such experiments. I don't think science has a very good grasp on exactly what "life" is yet. We just don't know yet. But it will be interesting to see what the future holds.

So Seth thinks man is god-made and therefore not part of nature, so nothing man does is natural.

Surely Seth does not believe that man is the only creature his god ever created. If god-made = unnatural, wouldn't that make everything "unnatural"?

[UnReAL]

Originally Posted by godmachine

To the best of my knowledge nothing resembling "life" has ever been produced from such experiments. I don't think science has a very good grasp on exactly what "life" is yet. We just don't know yet. But it will be interesting to see what the future holds.

As I had stated earlier they started out by producing amino acids in the '50's, & just recently they were able to synthesize the ribonucleotides necessary to form an RNA molecule. These are the basic building blocks of life, so I think we've gotten a much better idea of what "life" is. We may not fully understand the process, but we've come much further in the past century than anyone had ever thought was possible.

[romansh]

Originally Posted by UnReAL

As I had stated earlier they started out by producing amino acids in the '50's, & just recently they were able to synthesize the ribonucleotides necessary to form an RNA molecule.

So UnReAL - so my question is when scientists synthesize these ribonucleides do we deem this natural or unnatural?

[omnissiuntone]

Originally Posted by Seth

You seem to be equating homosexuality with paedophilia here. Are you suggesting that it is impossible for homosexuals to control their sexual urges? This seems quite prejudiced to me, so I'm sure I've misunderstood your position.

Nope, I'm not equating homosexuality with paedophilia. I'm saying that denial of one's natural sexual urges, be they heterosexual or homosexual, could well lead to paedophilia if children are the only possible objects of sexual attraction around. Certainly it's not healthy to deny one of our most basic drives.

I do apologise, but this sentence makes no logical sense to me.

It's simple: is something just (or good) because God commands it, or does he command it because it's just? If the former, then morality is arbitrary. If the latter, then it is independent of God. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Regarding abiogenesis: it is too early to say one way or the other. Certainly it is absurd to fill that scientific gap with God.

[UnReAL]

Originally Posted by romansh

So UnReAL - so my question is when scientists synthesize these ribonucleides do we deem this natural or unnatural?

That's open to debate. They tried re-creating a natural process in an artificial setting. The same idea could be applied to stem-cell research & cloning.

[romansh]

Originally Posted by UnReAL

That's open to debate. They tried re-creating a natural process in an artificial setting. The same idea could be applied to stem-cell research & cloning.

Let me ask the question again -
Assuming man is part of nature - is there anything man can do that is not natural?

[godmachine]

Originally Posted by romansh

Let me ask the question again -
Assuming man is part of nature - is there anything man can do that is not natural?

The ignostic in me thinks we need to define "nature".

[UnReAL]

Originally Posted by romansh

Let me ask the question again -
Assuming man is part of nature - is there anything man can do that is not natural?

It really depends on where you wanna draw the line between "natural" & "artificial". Perhaps we should get a clear definition of "nature" from your perspective.

[pseudonous]

Originally Posted by omnissiuntone

Regarding abiogenesis: it is too early to say one way or the other. ...

I disagree. We know the atoms inside living organisms follow the same laws of physics as atoms outside of living organisms. The only question is how abiogenesis occurred.