Creating it in the lab is natural.
You fundamentally fail to understand what we mean by "creation". "Creation" in the usage you prefer does not apply here.
I understand that you want to use a nuanced definition. Knock yourself out.
Create doesn't mean create it means didn't create...
I'll stick with a good old fashioned dictionary definition.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
verb
1. bring (something) into existence.
You are discussing "creation through the provision of an evolving system with a designed single degree of freedom, such that there is a single, known and knowable outcome."
OK
But create still means create.
This "creation" in a lab is "creation through the provision of an evolving system with a WIDE degree of freedoms such that there is no single, known, knowable outcome for the purposes of determining a the range of outcomes for that initial state."
OK
But create still means create.
One is turning a dice face up and saying "the number is 5" and ascertaining from this distribution that a 20 sided dice always == 5, and the other is actually throwing it in the box, turning the box in a way controlled by the nuclear decay of some radioactive shit, and seeing that the result is an unpredictable value between 1 and 20.
Um...OK
You're losing me a little with the ...unpredictable values of a 20-sided dice thingy but
create still means create.
It's just an observation of "what happens when this stuff is configured this way". It's not creation in terms of wanting a result, just acceptance of whatever result is observed.
If it's "not creation", it's not creation.
No argument from me about that claim.
In short, lion, you are conflating two different definitions of the word "create".
Um...no. I don't have
two different definitions.
Did I mention that? Create means create.
If I DID have two different definitions THEN I might accidentally conflate them.
There have been scientists who have done "special creation" in a lab vis a vis designing a whole cell and it's DNA and letting the chemical system progress through metabolic cycles,
Special creation is fine by me.
No problem with that.
Its only when someone says its a form of
creation so special that it suddenly means the
opposite of creation.
...but this is more a validation of the statement that there is nothing magical, no soul that humans cannot create or force into existence.
How many times do I have to say it. I dont think it's magical or supernatural when humans create something.
...under controlled conditions.
...in a lab
...with expectations and predictions about what will happen
It was done to answer a different question than this.
The experiment of the OP was to see if the chaos and environment of the earth supported abiogenesis.
You mean... to see if they could
deliberately recreate the ingredients and conditions which the bible refers to where God says
..."let the earth bring forth".
technically, we didn't create the outcome, we created the initial condition, a condition which was apparently invented by chaos, not by planning.
This sounds self-contradictory.
But I get it. You have a nuanced definition of 'create'.
It was that condition that was then observed "creating" the outcome, with our hands fully away from the tiller of that ship.
Your invisible hands?
The ones that caused it without having caused it?
"...
in the beginning there was a ship. Nobody created the ship. Its a ship launched by nobody. It has a tiller but you can't see the invisible hands guiding the ship."
And we know this because actual ship builders in a lab recreated the exact same sort of ship.
