Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you base that on? There are 1000+ extrasolar planets known, and that is just in our little corner of one galaxy among billions. I would say that it's a virtual certainty.
I base it on the obsevable fact that to our knowledge { humans } there is no life on other planets. Am I saying that definitively there certainlyis no life? Absolutely not. How could such a claim be made when we in the spectrum of things, havnt even begun to study all the possible life-containing planets in the universe.
S
The fine Dr Venter's work has been discussed previously in this thread. Unless you have new data to show that was not discussed about his synthetic DNA or something new...that has already been refuted as not helpful to your cause concerning the origin of life.
As I have already discussed and as not been refuted (you are
More than welcome to if you want though) the creation of life in the lab does not necessarily help the argument for or against de nice origination of life...it simply means science understands how
Life works and can replicate that process. Show
Me some kind of de novo formation of some of the primary molecules which life is
Based on and then we can discuss the topic of the original post...
Until then, creating life in the lab means
Nothing to disprove creationism or
Prove natural origination of life.
Actually, Shibumi is right. Venter did not "just re-create existing life", he simply provided some basic materials, and then placed them into a suitable container which in itself was not alive nor responsive in any way.
It does refute the bible's idea that only god can create life. It also paves the way for the spontaneous, non-godly origins of life, which then allows the now-proven Evolution process. Christians deny both these events, but won't be able to much longer. When that route to our origins is finally accepted, you will have little to support or base biblical fact on. It's myth status will be finally confirmed, but even then, I doubt the devout will allow that terrifying truth into their frightened and co-dependent heads.
What happened next with Venter's research was remarkable but also technically understandable: the amino acid-based DNA arranged itself and self-booted itself up into a living, replicating organism.
So sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Oh, and let's also see you take Shibumi's challenge to heart:
Tell us that science will NEVER achieve what you say is unachievable.
You haven't made that absolute claim yet. Please: go ahead.
Rifleman,
Sorry I can not quote response to your post, my
Phone is acting up and I am away from home, but your post needs some serious attention...
As I posted In a previous post, Dr Venter's research was placing a synthetically produced DNA strand in a living bacteria related to the DNA strand which was altered, this new synthetic DNA then transformed the already living cell into a new species or type of bacteria. This is also called vector genetics, but the importance of this research was that this was the first time a living cell was "transformed" into a new species via a complete strand of the synthetic DNA.
As I already posted previously, this does nothing but give credence to a creationism argument since nothing was made from nothing in this experiment, it was all created molecules injected into another living organism.
Please read the research and understand what you are trying to pass off...a simple look at the frequently asked questions (which I previously posted as well) showed the researchers used completely living organisms.
I am not sure where you guys got the idea the DNA was injected into a lipid shell or something like that...but that is so far from the truth of this research.
And, as previously posted in my posts, I have said I do believe science will one day create life
In the lab....
But as also previously posted, this does nothing to make the case for natural origination of life...just because we can make computers in a lab does not
Mean we can expect that computers originated from a junk yard of old scrap metal.
When a lab can show the de novo production of enzymes, proteins, and molecules such as DNA from only rudimentary pre-cursors...then we have an argument.
Until then, don't try to pass off research as so
Edging it isn't.
Please excuse any typos in this since
I can not edit it properly right now...
No, that isn't a fact at all. If it was fact you would be able to support it with verifiable evidence. If it was fact you wouldn't need to keep harping on about the requirement for 'faith' because faith would not be necessary. It is not fact, it is your belief.
Shalom Rafius...
harping ? I never said nor implied that faith (trust and loyalty) in/to G-d is a requirement...it is however truly necessary, because without it you'll be the one sitting in a place where one ought not to: that chair is for G-d's Christ, and no other.
The quality of G-d being actual is a fact you question and therefore hinges upon evidence that you require in order for you to believe in God your Creator. Coming from you this is a bit superfluous, but in reverse. While you demand evidence that G-d is, you fail to present any evidence that G-d is not, or never was.
G-d is...the burden of proof has already been demonstrated, but you fail to recognize it as G-d's demonstration of the proof He knew in advance that you would require.
What more can G-d do in His garden for you to have the righteousness of His only begotten Son imputed to you so that you might not perish. What...do you think G-d is going to come out of the sky and wiggle on your face and winky, winky, it's all good ? The Blessings of The Eternal One instruct you with His Holy Spirit. Amen
Rifleman, I am curious if you still misunderstand the research you talked about in the post above?
Is there anything else you want to say?
Btw, I usually wouldn't be so antagonizing, but there seems to be a lot of common misconceptions about this research. Namely the concept that no living organism was used in this, and that the DNA used was spontaneously arrived from a soup of amino acids....
I would ask for a refund from the atheism weekly that published the review you guys used on that one...wink wink....
Just playing with you all the same way you guys play with Bible thumpers
Is it so hard to imagine that there is a savior for every planet that has life on it? I dont beleive in saviors or anything, but the fact that one would be needed for all planets that have life does nothing to diminish the argument that there are saviors.
...thats whay I was asking about which posts you put this mountain of evidence in....
Still ignoring the things I listed then huh. I listed by name some of the hypothesis involved and the evidences for them. I ask you to go and read about them, and the actual experiments that were done which gave the data that lent those ideas credence. It seems you have done no such thing.
If they are "easily refuted" then proceed to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
A scientific hypothesis (because that is what we are talking about) is nothing more than an educated guess
I am afraid saying this over and over is not really helping anything. The fact is that a hypothesis which is grounded in fact, evidence and experiment is much more than a simply guess.
The idea there is a god for example... which is entirely baseless and no one on here, much less you, is providing a single shred of an iota of evidence, argument, data or reasons to lend it credence.... Is a "guess".
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
If you want to see an argument about why someone could believe in intelligent design, here is a very simple argument:
The simplest biologic cell is so incredibly complex, made up of so many different non-naturally occuring proteins and enzymes and molecules, I have a hard time believing this could riginate de novo.
But this is NOT an argument. This is a non-sequitur entirely. Simply saying "It is complex.... therefore it must be designed" is a complete non-sequitur. This is not argument, it is assumption.
I asked for argument, not assumption.
It is human arrogance and human arrogance alone that leads to this kind of assumption. We over estimate our own abilities and when therefore we come across a level of "complexity" that challenges us beyond those capabilities we find it easier to just declare there must have been an even more intelligence designer behind it than us.
In evolution and in mathematics however we have seen time and time again how massive complexity can come out of even the most simple of beginnings and equations. The world around us has "life" in all kinds of levels of complexity from the very simple to the very complex. There is no reason at all to posit a creator to explain any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckinbalad
What you are implying here is that hypothesis has evidence and support to back it up...
No I am implying that it has evidence, data and experiment to ground it in credibility and reason. A "guess" is just something you come up with based on nothing. You can "guess" randomly what the first card out of a well shuffled deck of cards is. That is "guessing". Hypothesis however has data grounding it to give good reason to think that the possibility is sound. Here is a dictionary definition of guess from the internet for you. "–noun an opinion that one reaches or to which one commits oneself on the basis of probability alone or in the absence of any evidence whatever."
Here also is one of Hypothesis: "asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."
Read again: One is "in the absence of any evidence" the other is "in the light of established facts". See the difference yet?
It also, as I said, must have explanatory power. Scientific hypothesis does have explanatory power. If proved it would answer questions. Religious fantasy however has no such thing. It answers none of the origins questions, but instead moves them one level further back to the "god" of which we now must ask all the same questions.
Nor am I required to for what I am saying to carry. The fact is that if you prove something is possible in the presence of a mind, you have done nothing to prove that it is ONLY possible in the presence of a mind. Nothing at all.
What reproducing life origins in a lab WOULD do however is give us more clues as to what to look for when determining how it happened naturally.
I replied to everything you said...G-d is! Listen, if talking about faith in G-d is something you want nothing to do with, no worries, you're your own judge
No, nothing you have said so far has been a reply to anything I have written.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take The Challenge, I dare you.
