Artificial Life Created

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately atrocious logic doesn't get any better how many times you state it.

If a being can do something (even a supernatural being), then that something is not, by definition, impossible.

It is impossible. Believers have to define another realm outside our universe to hold this being where none of our natural laws apply because if the natural laws applied, as they do in this universe, this being could not exist. The idea of a supernatural being breaks the laws of nature which is the very definition of impossible within this universe but in this other realm the word impossible has a different meaning. Things are possible there that are impossible here. This being might well exist in this other realm but until there is the slightest shred of evidence that this other realm where the impossible is possible actually exists I'm sticking with the natural explanation, however unlikely that may seem to be to people who don't realise it's not possible to know how unlikely it is. An explanation that is unlikely but which doesn't break the laws of nature is always to be preferred to one that does break these laws

StealthRolex

Nick Dolan wrote: »

If these scientists had been content to behave as christians and accept christian doctrine on faith alone they would not have questioned the world around them and made their discoveries

Someones been hanging around the atheists myth sites again :rolleyes:

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Science does do it, and it works a bit. Science does say, "Umm, we think it might be this."

No actually it doesn't. Scientists might, in public lectures or in popular science articles. But science doesn't.

PDN wrote: »

In fact that would pretty well sum up a lot of what science has said in the past about ether, a steady state universe, or a cosmological constant, and what science is currently saying about string theory with little strings that have ten dimensions.

Science is currently saying string theory is not really science. I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether you guys actually understand why.

Nick Dolan

StealthRolex wrote: »

Is that what I asked?

Let's try again. Are there many atheists who are not pro-science?

or put it another way, are there any anti-science atheists?

Yes there are, this is not pertaining to anything

ah, the insults begin to fly as the true colours are unfurled....

I, like everyone else in this thread, have been very civil considering the very emotive issues involved. and I deliberatly nailed my colours to the mainmast in my first post

...and run up the flagpole

??

If you actually read any of my arguments you would find that I actually say the exact opposite as I am of the opinion that the practitioners of atheism and those that call themselves atheists and anti-theists (Buddhists and other religions with no deity excepted) and in particular the active atheists and new age atheists are sciences greatest hindrance.

I cannot disagree in any stronger terms. Scientists of any major religion that states believing things on faith is a virtue, must go against this instruction if they are to perform research. This does not mean studying air pollution, inventing better plastics, testing drugs means you have to forsake your faith. It means it you have to abandon faith as a form of evidence. this is what critical thinkers do and it makes better science



and finally...! ive never even heard of a atheist myth website.But let me say this: if Charles Darwin had been a good Christian he would have believed the Creation story on faith and not came up with evolution.Hope im not going to far off thread, or looking like Im gunning for StealthRolex

PDN

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I cannot disagree in any stronger terms. Scientists of any major religion that states believing things on faith is a virtue, must go against this instruction if they are to preform research. This does not mean studying air pollution, inventing better plastics, testing drugs means you have to forsake your faith. It means it you have to abandon faith as a form of evidence. this is what critical thinkers do and it makes better science[/QUOTE

This is really a quite appalling misrepresentation of what religion teaches.

For example, scientists who also happen to be Christians believe that it is reasonable (not a virtue) to believe certain revealed truths concerning God and salvation which are otherwise unknowable.

They also believe that many things in this world are knowable by research and experimentation. These are usually things concerning which there is no revealed truth, and therefore no basis for exercising faith.

So to say that they are going against any instruction of theiir religion is nonsense.

StealthRolex

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I cannot disagree in any stronger terms. Scientists of any major religion that states believing things on faith is a virtue, must go against this instruction if they are to preform research. This does not mean studying air pollution, inventing better plastics, testing drugs means you have to forsake your faith. It means it you have to abandon faith as a form of evidence. this is what critical thinkers do and it makes better science

So are you suggesting that Christians who work as scientists cannot be critical thinkers?

If anything Christians in the field of scientific research have to more critical than atheists which makes them better scientists.

Nick Dolan

This is really a quite appalling misrepresentation of what religion teaches.

For example, scientists who also happen to be Christians believe that it is reasonable (not a virtue) to believe certain revealed truths concerning God and salvation which are otherwise unknowable.

They also believe that many things in this world are knowable by research and experimentation. These are usually things concerning which there is no revealed truth, and therefore no basis for exercising faith.

So to say that they are going against any instruction of theiir religion is nonsense.

the revelation of thruths is not valid as scientific facts.My point remains valid that the idea of religion being beneficial to science throughout history or even today is not true.

StealthRolex

Nick Dolan wrote: »

the revelation of thruths is not valid as scientific facts.My point remains valid that the idea of religion being beneficial to science throughout history or even today is not true.

Revealed truths are the subjects of theology and religion, not science.

Your point is invalid unless you are prepared to reveal what kind of science is not benefited by religion. Otherwise it is nothing more than a dogmatic assertion from a twisted ideology that displays no knowledge or understanding of science, history or theology.

Did religion hinder Venter? No it did not and it is more likely opposition will come from non religious organisations - "The (American) National Farmers Union(NFU) has expressed concerns that the development of a synthetic cell could lead to worrisome, long-term consequences. The NFU president Terry Boehm called the world's first "100 per cent synthetic life form" a risk "for humankind and the environment." "source

Maybe you should try peddling your nonsense on the Farming forum.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

What kind of science is not benefited by religion?

All.

ISAW

Nick Dolan wrote: »

the revelation of thruths is not valid as scientific facts.My point remains valid that the idea of religion being beneficial to science throughout history or even today is not true.

according to what scientific law is eugenics wrong? Or abortion? Or animal experimentation?
or cloning? Is ethics derivable from equations?

ISAW

Nick Dolan wrote: »

If Charles Darwin had been a good Christian he would have believed the Creation story on faith and not came up with evolution.

Ridiculous! Not alone that it is a "what if". The idea that only someone rejecting Christianity could come up with the theory of evolution is just plain silly!

By the way any "belief" involved faith.

Nick Dolan

No science can be helped by being told "This is true, why, well it just is.Dont worry anymore about it" I dont want to be goaded into religion bashing , I wanted to refute the suggestions here that religion was beneficial to science through history when the facts are otherwise.

StealthRolex

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Yes there are, this is not pertaining to anything

So why did you introduce yourself as a pro-science atheist? Is there something special about being "pro-science". I don't know anyone who is anti-science much less an anti-science atheist.

StealthRolex

Nick Dolan wrote: »

No science can be helped by being told "This is true, why, well it just is.Dont worry anymore about it" I dont want to be goaded into religion bashing , I wanted to refute the suggestions here that religion was beneficial to science through history when the facts are otherwise.

Whose doing the goading? You came in here with an agenda. If you have any facts to support your case present them.

Nick Dolan

ISAW wrote: »

Ridiculous! Not alone that it is a "what if". The idea that only someone rejecting Christianity could come up with the theory of evolution is just plain silly!

By the way any "belief" involved faith.

If he had fully accepted the creationist version of life, he would not have formed a theory of evolution. No what if.

Nick Dolan

StealthRolex wrote: »

Whose doing the goading? You came in here with an agenda. If you have any facts to support your case present them.

We all came here with an agenda and wandered waaaaaay of topic with it.

Festus

Nick Dolan wrote: »

If he had fully accepted the creationist version of life, he would not have formed a theory of evolution. No what if.

It would help if you had read Darwin before regurgitating that kind of tripe. He was after all a theologian.

StealthRolex

Nick Dolan wrote: »

We all came here with an agenda and wandered waaaaaay of topic with it.

I take it then you have nothing to support your assertion.

StealthRolex

Well, he dismisses the creation of life story.

Venter himself maintains that he has not created life . "We've created the first synthetic cell," he says. "We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome."

But supports the requirement of intelligence

"Unless you are Craig Venter with a crew of 20 postdocs you're not going to do this." (Ellington)

Source NS 20 May 2010 Ewen Callaway

Nick Dolan

Festus wrote: »

It would help if you had read Darwin before regurgitating that kind of tripe. He was after all a theologian.

Missing the point. Had he been more religious he wouldnt have even formed the theory, the biblical explanation was there and that was that. That is why religion (not just Christianity) does not help science

philologos

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Missing the point. Had he been more religious he wouldnt have even formed the theory, the biblical explanation was there and that was that. That is why religion (not just Christianity) does not help science

This isn't entirely accurate Nick.

Church Fathers such as Augustine, and Origen of Jerusalem had offered alternative interpretations of Genesis from the 3rd century AD. It isn't true that only 1 view of the Genesis creation account existed until Darwin came along. It might suit your view down to the ground, but it simply isn't the truth.

Festus

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Missing the point. Had he been more religious he wouldnt have even formed the theory, the biblical explanation was there and that was that. That is why religion (not just Christianity) does not help science

Your making stuff up now and you got a plank in your eye.
The Bible describes our origin from the Big Bang to the evolution of life using symbolism.

If you haven't read the Genesis Enigma you should. If you have read the Bible literally try reading it again but symbolically.

If you're too lazy to do either start here

Festus

We should be asking "Why?" not "how?" - this is a Christianity thread

And not why Venter did what he did - that's too obvious. but why life is on this planet, why did the earth form, why did life start.

Venter has prompted some questions, sure, but after Crick and Watson this was inevitable - we just needed more technology and more intelligence and more knowledge. All we know now is that life is incredibly hard to make and requires time effort and intelligence.

What we don't know is why life exists at all.

We know "artificial life" ala Venter exists because Venter created it.

Q. for C. - Why do we exist?

Q. for atheits - why do we exist if there is no Creator?

hint - "I\we don't know" is not a valid answer"
Why?
Because kids ask these kind of questions and they don;t take " I dunno" for an answer/

Fanny Cradock

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Missing the point. Had he been more religious he wouldnt have even formed the theory, the biblical explanation was there and that was that.

And I suppose you can provide evidence of this?

monosharp

Festus wrote: »

Q. for atheits - why do we exist if there is no Creator?

I'm with Douglas.

In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

hint - "I\we don't know" is not a valid answer"
Why?
Because kids ask these kind of questions and they don;t take " I dunno" for an answer/

Thats nice. What kind of lie would you like me to make up ? Because the reality is we don't know.

I don't know how to do advanced algebra, when a kid asks me shall I just fake it ? I'm sure he won't notice until the Leaving Cert.

Festus

monosharp wrote: »

I don't know how to do advanced algebra, when a kid asks me shall I just fake it ? I'm sure he won't notice until the Leaving Cert.

If you know nothing of science start here :type in a-l-g-e-b-r-a

When your comfrtable with that try here and type in a-d-v-a-n-c-e-d a-l-g-e-b-r-a

:P :P

Nick Dolan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And I suppose you can provide evidence of this?

Self evident


"I dont know" is a very valid honest answer. Scientists have the courage to say this.

The earlier point, why do we exist if there is no creator? Because chemicals banged together -> billions of years -> here we are. it only requires a creator if you need it to.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

according to what scientific law is eugenics wrong? Or abortion? Or animal experimentation?
or cloning? Is ethics derivable from equations?

Ethics is not derivable from equations but it certainly is derivable without a god. In fact it's not derivable with god since the world derivable suggests reason being applied to determine the best course of action and religious based morality is not based on reason, it's based on obeying the orders of an unquestionable authority figure who declares things to be immoral even though there may be no discernable reason why this should be the case.

Fanny Cradock

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Self evident

So that's a "no"?

Nick Dolan

Its a straight forward statement. Had there been no church position on creation, there would have been no controversy. There is no Christian position on lasers or fibre optics for example. Scientists beaver away and if there ever needs to be such a position established Ive no doubt they will turn to scientists and ask whats the story. But this has/is not always the case