Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

[Azdgari]

In that sense, he would be.  However...

It is then misleading to say that it created humans, just as it is misleading to say that your great-grandfather made a post on this forum.

Care to go around the mulberry bush again?

[JTW]

No more misleading than saying my parents didn't create me, a bunch of molocules and atoms all pushed together did.

[Azdgari]

I can't continue to discuss this topic with someone who deliberately refuses to see my point.  And it's either your deliberate refusal, or intellectual handicap, neither of which I can do anything about.

[JTW]

What was your point again? Oh, that God didn't create anything directly.

If something says made in China using 100% African apricot juice, what is it? China juice or apricot juice?

[Azdgari]

I'll try one last time.

"It" - meaning the object as defined and identified, in this case let's say it's a bottle of juice - was made by whatever person/process assembled it.  The further you go back along the chain of causation that created it, the further you get from anything we can meaningfully identify as its "creator".  Get it?

Bah, I've lost patience now with this "creation" term.  Strictly speaking, no instance of creation has ever been observed*.  Only rearrangement.  Positing creation rather than rearrangement breaks parsimony.  Is there a good reason to do this?  What did god rearrange in order to get the material for the universe?


* - Some will be pedantic and point out that virtual particles come into existence without being rearranged from something else.  I'd like to point out that A. they don't exist for long (are unstable), and B. their genesis is evidence that something can, indeed, spontaneously appear out of nothing.

[JTW]

I'll try one last time.

"It" - meaning the object as defined and identified, in this case let's say it's a bottle of juice - was made by whatever person/process assembled it.  The further you go back along the chain of causation that created it, the further you get from anything we can meaningfully identify as its "creator".  Get it?

Wrong. It's both China juice and apricot juice.

Bah, I've lost patience now with this "creation" term.  Strictly speaking, no instance of creation has ever been observed*.  Only rearrangement.  Positing creation rather than rearrangement breaks parsimony.  Is there a good reason to do this?  What did god rearrange in order to get the material for the universe?

That's the burning question, pardon the pun. But there's as much evidence for God flipping the switch as there is for nothing flipping the switch. Hence, claiming everything that was created (matter) from that initial blast being the result of a creator.

* - Some will be pedantic and point out that virtual particles come into existence without being rearranged from something else.  I'd like to point out that A. they don't exist for long (are unstable), and B. their genesis is evidence that something can, indeed, spontaneously appear out of nothing.

No matter where we go with this I will always have the upper hand. The creation out of nothing of a virtual particle is my Spinozan checkmate - everything is God.

[Azdgari]

Well, if you define God as being "everything" then I can hardly disprove it, but I have to suspect your motives for doing so.  Why not just call everything, "everything"?

[bahramthered]

No matter where we go with this I will always have the upper hand. The creation out of nothing of a virtual particle is my Spinozan checkmate - everything is God.

Actually you don't. Your assuming that because the orgins of the universe is a mystery it had to be god and/or it couldn't have been a natural event. This is circular logic at best.

What proof do you have that god did anything, let alone exists?

[NinjaProof]

I wonder what this will do to creationist?

Psyopathic rage or mental gymnastics to disclaim it?

Mental gymnastics sound like good exercise. Scientists methodically building protocells which "might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe" is a far cry from proof of ambiogenesis, and at any rate does nothing to disprove creationism.

[Hermes]

I wonder what this will do to creationist?

Psyopathic rage or mental gymnastics to disclaim it?

Mental gymnastics sound like good exercise. Scientists methodically building protocells which "might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe" is a far cry from proof of ambiogenesis, and at any rate does nothing to disprove creationism.

Of course not.  Creationism isn't reality, it's a claim of magic without the demonstration.  Why would anyone want to spend time disproving that which has no support?

[JTW]

Well, if you define God as being "everything" then I can hardly disprove it, but I have to suspect your motives for doing so.  Why not just call everything, "everything"?

Now we're getting somewhere. We think it has a conscience, that's why.

[Hermes]

Well, if you define God as being "everything" then I can hardly disprove it, but I have to suspect your motives for doing so.  Why not just call everything, "everything"?

Now we're getting somewhere. We think it has a conscience, that's why.

Of course it does.  You're talking to it right now, and you'll talk to more of the universe's conscience later.  It can even talk to itself.

[bahramthered]

Under that logic the Nimbari have best relgion ever. The idea that universe is sentient and investing pieces of itself in us to explore it'self. Except of course the Nimbari are fictional...

All right. I'm gonna regret this but;

JTW; why do you beleive the universe has a conscience? I won't even ask about this panet.

The universe has galaxies surrounding black holes, and subsquently doomed to be consumed by them. The universe has whole galaxies colliding. If those worlds have life (highly likely based on the numbers) then the universe should be crying based on the sheer number of innocent deaths it's causing by the second. Why would it show it's pain to people of an insgnificant rock that's pretty dam safe at the moment.

[NinjaProof]

I wonder what this will do to creationist?

Psyopathic rage or mental gymnastics to disclaim it?

Mental gymnastics sound like good exercise. Scientists methodically building protocells which "might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe" is a far cry from proof of ambiogenesis, and at any rate does nothing to disprove creationism.

Of course not.  Creationism isn't reality, it's a claim of magic without the demonstration.  Why would anyone want to spend time disproving that which has no support?

Well debunking creation is the implication, isn't it? To convince the creationist that science is right and the bible is wrong? Creationism has plenty of support, you refuse to see it.

[bahramthered]

Support or evidence? Not the same thing. I've never seen anything that resembles evidence.

[Ananukia]

I wonder what this will do to creationist?

Psyopathic rage or mental gymnastics to disclaim it?

Mental gymnastics sound like good exercise. Scientists methodically building protocells which "might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe" is a far cry from proof of ambiogenesis, and at any rate does nothing to disprove creationism.

Of course not.  Creationism isn't reality, it's a claim of magic without the demonstration.  Why would anyone want to spend time disproving that which has no support?

Well debunking creation is the implication, isn't it? To convince the creationist that science is right and the bible is wrong? Creationism has plenty of support, you refuse to see it.

Silly christians and their belief that everyone and thing revolves around them and their ego...sorry I meant god.

Those scientists are REALLY working one handed, because they are shaking a fist up at god.

[Hermes]

I wonder what this will do to creationist?

Psyopathic rage or mental gymnastics to disclaim it?

Mental gymnastics sound like good exercise. Scientists methodically building protocells which "might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe" is a far cry from proof of ambiogenesis, and at any rate does nothing to disprove creationism.

Of course not.  Creationism isn't reality, it's a claim of magic without the demonstration.  Why would anyone want to spend time disproving that which has no support?

Well debunking creation is the implication, isn't it? To convince the creationist that science is right and the bible is wrong? Creationism has plenty of support, you refuse to see it.

Creationism is just not important.  It describes nothing and is ignored till Creationists make a stink about it.

There is nothing to debunk.  Creationists don't offer proof, they offer assertions and then (like you) get upset when the Bible isn't even factored in.

Yet, most mainline religions (including the majority of Christian sects) claim there is no conflict between evolution and religious belief.  None.  The Christian sects often still contend that your god had a hand in it, but they claim nothing more than that.  Don't believe me?  Go make a list of the dozen or so largest sects of Christianity and go ask them if they think evolution is valid or not.

Go on ... go look and figure this out yourself.   It's not hard to actually look at the world and ask people what they really think.   You might find it refreshing.

[bahramthered]

I'm calling that. Most sects offically say they're cool with it but why are they still trying to force it into the schools?

I live in PA near Dover. You should have seen the freaks last year (or was it two) who came and protested when that stupid ID freindly statement got ripped out of the sceince text books. Crazy. The scary kind.

They came from across the nation and had the most vile ridiculous things to say about us. And they looked like everyone else till they opened their mouths or unfolded their signs.

Even that idot Pat Robinson got in on it saying we voted god out of dover and god would punish us. *checks for the hurricane that was suppose to annilate us*

So don't tell me that most people are cool with evolution over adam and eve. Even moderate people where saying things like evolution hasn't been proven and read your bible (like I own one).

[Azdgari]

The nutjobs are the ones who get worked up about it and appear at protests, etc.  The sane ones don't care, so you don't see them.

[JTW]

The nutjobs are the ones who get worked up about it and appear at protests, etc.  The sane ones don't care, so you don't see them.

The most important question is which is the majority and which is the minority?

Care to speculate?

[Hermes]

So don't tell me that most people are cool with evolution over adam and eve. Even moderate people where saying things like evolution hasn't been proven and read your bible (like I own one).

From a global perspective, the USA does not have most of the Christians let alone most of the religious population in any sect (minus Mormons I'd guess).  The USA tends to have very conservative religious sects and many of them.  Most other countries are more homogeneous and tend not to be uninformed.

[Azdgari]

The nutjobs are the ones who get worked up about it and appear at protests, etc.  The sane ones don't care, so you don't see them.

The most important question is which is the majority and which is the minority?
Care to speculate?

No, I don't.  I'd like to point out that you've already labelled yourself, in this thread, as being part of the former group though.

[JTW]

lol, uh ya, challenging your "from nothing" argument somehow makes me a nutjob appearing at creationist rally's...  :

[Azdgari]

When did I mention that?

[JTW]

Do you mean former as in majority/minority or nutjob/sane?

[Azdgari]

Well, you priviledge personal religious bias over physical evidence.  That makes you a nutjob in my books.

[JTW]

That's what I'm saying Einstein. I'm challenging you on the "beginning of things" which you also can't explain efficiently any better than my "God caused it" and you're calling me a nutjob.

Good on ya.

[bahramthered]

At least he has working theories to point to, Bing Bang, Hawkins recent work with black holes, ect to describe the universe. Christians just keep answering god did it. The smarter ones (like JTW) at least try and say "So now we know how god did it". Never mind the possibility that it might be a natural event without any god involved.

But like I said earlier and no on bothered to challenge me; I've never see a bit of evidence for god or creationism. Can anyone produce it? One rule, bible and feelings don't count as evidence. I want either concrete rock solid verified evidence or real peer reviewed science.

[Azdgari]

I'm challenging you on the "beginning of things" ...

I don't recall you having challenged me on anything like that in this thread.