Artificial Life Created

Fanny Cradock · 21-05-2010 02:43PM

monosharp wrote: »

Because god created all life but it wasn't actually that hard ?

You are losing the run of yourself. Quite why you feel your rhetorical questions are justified from my words eludes me. I also suspect that it eludes you and you are crowbarring in some objections that are rattling around your head.

I'll just go back to ignoring you now. It is best for both of us

lmaopml · 21-05-2010 02:43PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe to your mind, but I would think that God has a definition on the Christianity forum.

While this achievement is exciting (and it seems the devil is in the details with regards to the full extent of the achievement) my faith isn't threatened. Indeed, they had previously made a synthetic virus so it was only a matter of time. I suspect that more than one creationist/ IDer will happily point out that this life was designed, and a huge amount of time, effort and resources were poured into it.
I suggest that the points of tension that surround this achievement will be moral and ethical, and not necessarily theological.

Yes, I can see this would be more likely. I think this discovery is really exciting, but I don't really 'get' why it has anything to do with theology, or even why it should...

however...

Just thought I'd post this animation of a single cell.....Aww, it's fabulous, so worth watching, whatever side of the great divide we're on it's truely amazing.....better than the 'textbook' version anyday....It's both amazing that we can 'examine' it and animate it to this extent, and the amount of knowledge we've garnered.......it's also amazing just for the incredible beauty...

For you're enjoyment, Christians and Atheists alike..lol...:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTNnyZBegR8&feature=related

PDN · 21-05-2010 02:48PM

sink wrote: »

Ok, that definition has no bearing on anything related to the field of genetic engineering or even biology for that matter. Therefore it is completely meaningless in the context of the debate on whether artificially created life in a lab disproves gods existence. Which was my original point.

If you're going to argue about God's role in the creation of life you first have to give God a specific role to play.

No, you're putting the cart before the horse.

The question is not whether our definition of God has any bearing on genetic engineering or biology.

The question is whether genetic engineering or biology have any relevance to our definition of God.

If the answer is yes then we can discuss them in this forum. If the answer is no then the discussion probably belongs in another forum.

Turtwig · 21-05-2010 02:52PM

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, I can see this would be more likely. I think this discovery is really exciting, but I don't really 'get' why it has anything to do with theology, or even why it should... however...

+1.

sink · 21-05-2010 02:52PM

PDN wrote: »

No, you're putting the cart before the horse.

The question is not whether our definition of God has any bearing on genetic engineering or biology.

The question is whether genetic engineering or biology have any relevance to our definition of God.

If the answer is yes then we can discuss them in this forum. If the answer is no then the discussion probably belongs in another forum.

That's two way's of saying the same thing e.g. 2x3=6 or 3x2=6. If one is true then so is the other.

By the definition you laid out in your previous post, the answer is No, to both.

So you better close this thread as it's clearly OT.

ISAW · 21-05-2010 03:04PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're making.....

that's okay. If you don't understand then just call it science.

Fanny Cradock · 21-05-2010 03:07PM

sink wrote: »

So you better close this thread as it's clearly OT.

Your suggestion (I assume that's what it was) has been noted.

Turtwig · 21-05-2010 03:07PM

ISAW wrote: »

that's okay. If you don't understand then just call it science.

Very cheap dodge..
What is your point exactly?

Zombrex · 21-05-2010 03:11PM

PDN wrote: »

Did someone say it was logically impossible for life to be formed from amino acids etc? I've never come across anyone that believed that.

Most of us, when we use the word 'impossible' refer to something that is so statistically unlikely that, to all intents and purposes, it will never happen.

For example, Richard Dawkins in 'The Blind Watchmaker' stated that it is not impossible for a statue to start waving its hand at us. Theoretically, it is conceivable that all the atoms in the statue could, by a freak coincidence, all move at the same time to make it wave its hand. However, such a coincidence is massively unlikely, even if we waited trillions of years, so we see such an event as being, to all intents and purposes, impossible.

That wasn't actual Dawkins point

Dawkins point was we can never actually say something is impossible by naturalistic means, so when we do appear to witness something crazy like a statue's hand waving it is illogical to proclaim it as a miracle.

It could simply be the result of an unknown natural system. We can't tell.

That goes to anything that is attributed to God.

ISAW · 21-05-2010 03:12PM

monosharp wrote: »

Christians used to all believe the earth was 6,000 years old, science corrected them. They changed their belief.

Scientists used to all believe the earth was 6,000 years old until Christians corrected them. They changed their belief.

Christians used to all believe god created all life as it is now, science corrected them. They changed their belief.

Scientists used to all believe in uniformitarianism until Christians corrected them. They changed their belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism#Geology_and_biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_%28science%29

Of course the modern "Unified field theory" is a form of this kind of theory.

It doesn't re-inforce it, it challenges what it is at the time, forcing you to change it.

I suggest you red the comments in the "asking questions of Christianity" thread.

So in a few hundred years lets say we meet a few hundred different alien species from out there in the universe and they A) have no religion/never heard of the idea of a deity or they all have different religions with little to nothing in common with Christianity.

And you'd still believe in Jesus as the son of 'god' ?

that also has been discussed and short answer for Christians is "yes . Why not?" Other people will probably also still believe in communism or atheism.

Fanny Cradock · 21-05-2010 03:12PM

lmaopml wrote: »

For you're enjoyment, Christians and Atheists alike..lol...:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTNnyZBegR8&feature=related

The video reminds me of the descriptions of the phenomena that appear on the surface of Solaris. I wonder is this where Lem got his ideas?

(Terrible music, btw :P)

antiskeptic · 21-05-2010 03:14PM

sink wrote: »

They have taken four bottles of chemicals and an empty cell wall, which is by any definition dead i.e not living. They painstakingly arranged them in a very specific manner and hey presto it came to life. Living from non-living anyway you look at it.

Let me see if I have this straight:

They examine life to see what componants go into making it up.

Then they disassemble some existing life into sub-assemblies.

Then they take one sub-assembly, jiggle it around in such a way that doesn't intrinsically alter it's life-contributing element (even if it does alter the nature of the life that will result from it being so jiggled).

Then they reassemble the componants, not too-unsurprisingly getting working life.

And this is what is called "creation"? I'd call it spannering around with creation to be honest.

ISAW · 21-05-2010 03:15PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That wasn't actual Dawkins point

Dawkins point was we can never actually say something is impossible by naturalistic means, so when we do appear to witness something crazy like a statue's hand waving it is illogical to proclaim it as a miracle.

It could simply be the result of an unknown natural system. We can't tell.

That goes to anything that is attributed to God.

so magic is indistinguishable form advanced knowledge and technology? So what we think oif as paranormal really exists we just dont have the knowledge or technology to explain it? How is "no magic" different from "no evidence of magic I just happen to believe it is explainable but over the next hill we will have the science to explain it" That is just scientism isn't it?

sink · 21-05-2010 03:16PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your suggestion (I assume that's what it was) has been noted.

Just be aware that if you do so you are effectively banishing the formation of living cells and all life as not relevant to Christianity. Which is exactly the position I hold.

krudler · 21-05-2010 03:19PM

Jakkass wrote: »

In creating the laws, and implementing them, I'm fairly sure that God would have used a very different, and more efficient procedure than we could ever devise on our own. So yes, there is a supernatural element in it certainly even in the light of this research.
We can only really hope to inadequately follow in God's footsteps biologically, as we attempt to do in our daily lives on an ethical and spiritual level.

Edit: Sufficient knowledge is an interesting term. Do you think man will ever reach omnipotence?

It suuposedly took God 700 million years (or 7 days, whichever you prefer) to create the world, it took this scientist 17 years and 40 million quid, surely gods efficiency is questionable?

Its like the public vs private sector, sure the private will cost more, but it'll get done in a fraction of the time

sink · 21-05-2010 03:19PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let me see if I have this straight:

They examine life to see what componants go into making it up.

Then they disassemble some existing life into sub-assemblies.

Then they take one sub-assembly, jiggle it around in such a way that doesn't intrinsically alter it's life-contributing element (even if it does alter the nature of the life that will result from it being so jiggled).

Then they reassemble the componants, not too-unsurprisingly getting working life.

And this is what is called "creation"? I'd call it spannering around with creation to be honest.

That's equivalent of saying a jet engine or a microchip is spannering around with elements, and neither were the creation of man.

PDN · 21-05-2010 03:21PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That wasn't actual Dawkins point

Dawkins point was we can never actually say something is impossible by naturalistic means, so when we do appear to witness something crazy like a statue's hand waving it is illogical to proclaim it as a miracle.

It could simply be the result of an unknown natural system. We can't tell.

That goes to anything that is attributed to God.

Amazingly enough I sometimes quote someone as an example while not making the same point they were making. :eek:

Dawkins words do, I believe, illustrate pretty well the idea that, in practical terms, there is little difference in saying something is impossible and saying it so unlikely that we can be confident it will never happen. Possibility does not necessarily mean plausibility.

Another example would be as follows (pinched from Brian Greene):
If you scattered all 950 pages of War and Peace in your back garden then it is theoretically possible that the wind could blow them into a nice tidy pile with every page in its correct sequence.

I think that most of us would agree that there is no physical law that would make such a thing impossible - but I also think most of us would see it as so improbable (and hence implausible) that we would explore other possibilities as to how those pages got into that neat pile.

ISAW · 21-05-2010 03:22PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Very cheap dodge..
What is your point exactly?

I just told you:) The cartoon depicts someond saying i dont understand and people saying "That's okay call it God"
It isn't funny to analyse humour but if you want it exactly

the epistemological domain through which ontological investigation in a one to one relationship with real world observations is conducted is depicted as bounded by all elements concerned only with deity and this is not necessarily the case.

In other words "call it God" is not mutually exclusive nor significantly encompassing as an answer. "call it science" could also be substituted in some cases of ignorance but then it would not be a joke about religion being equated with ignorance would it?

PDN · 21-05-2010 03:24PM

krudler wrote: »

It suuposedly took God 700 million years (or 7 days, whichever you prefer) to create the world, it took this scientist 17 years and 40 million quid, surely gods efficiency is questionable?

Its like the public vs private sector, sure the private will cost more, but it'll get done in a fraction of the time

The scientist created the world? Flipping heck, I thought he had just created some DNA in a single cell.

Wow! I take back eveything I've said. This discovery obviously does have theological implications! :eek:

antiskeptic · 21-05-2010 03:27PM

sink wrote: »

That's equivalent of saying a jet engine or a microchip is spannering around with elements, and neither were the creation of man.

Have you seen the blob of life that was created. They took a jet engine, spannered on it and made a jet engine. There is no additional complexity. No new order information.

krudler · 21-05-2010 03:32PM

PDN wrote: »

The scientist created the world? Flipping heck, I thought he had just created some DNA in a single cell.

Wow! I take back eveything I've said. This discovery obviously does have theological implications! :eek:

"just" created DNA? they werent boiling an egg, or is it Gods magic that makes water boil as well?

Fanny Cradock · 21-05-2010 03:34PM

sink wrote: »

Just be aware that if you do so you are effectively banishing the formation of living cells and all life as not relevant to Christianity. Which is exactly the position I hold.

Really?

lmaopml · 21-05-2010 03:36PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The video reminds me of the descriptions of the phenomena that appear on the surface of Solaris. I wonder is this where Lem got his ideas?

(Terrible music, btw :P)

Yeah, the music is meant to be 'haunting' methinks...lol...

Ahh well, I dunno, we've manufactured a version of our cousins the snottite's, I'm just wondering what we'll do with it now...hehe...We could always seal it in a meteor and hurl it into space I suppose....:D

It 'could' happen!

Turtwig · 21-05-2010 03:38PM

ISAW wrote: »

Scientists used to all believe the earth was 6,000 years old until Christians corrected them. They changed their belief.

In Western societies the belief of 6,000 years was widely down to interpretation of the bible. However, when scientists started finding fossils in the ground and signs of extinction events. It became apparent the world was much older. Kelvin estimated 20 million years, iirc. Unless you can show that these scientists made their arguments from the bible you cannot say Christians changed the consensus ; newly discovered physical evidence did. In fact, in my view, Christianity was a stifler here as the scientists tried to explain these occurrence with the biblical flood in mind. If it wasn't for the flood myth they wouldn't have wasted as much time chasing a false lead. But, then again that's how science works : they tested the flood idea and it failed. (That and they found evidence of numerous extinction events which must have been rather scary if you thought the world was so young.) Also the Good Archbishop Ussher made the calcuation that the earth was created in 4004 B.C even though no scientist at the time thought that to be true. Some Christians, it seems, did their best to overthrow the old earth idea. Sadly they are still continuing to this very day.

sink · 21-05-2010 03:42PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you seen the blob of life that was created. They took a jet engine, spannered on it and made a jet engine.

Not exactly. They gained knowledge by observing and experimenting with the natural environment. They then applied this knowledge by taking individual elements mined out of the soil, created compounds and alloys, moulded and shaped them into a jet engine. Creating a usefull propulsion device from what was rudimentary useless collection of elements

Similarly they gained knowledge by experimenting and the observing the cell. They then applied this knowledge by taking elements (that were not taken directly from a cell) and creating compounds with very long molecules. They then inserted them into a lifeless cell envelope, creating a fully functioning living cell from what was lifeless material.

Both process were done by examining the natural environment and applying the knowledge gained. No ones suggesting they created the natural environment, just applied it's own laws.

sink · 21-05-2010 03:46PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Really?

To which part are you seeking clarification? Whether how life formed is relevant to Christianity, or whether I believe that?

Fanny Cradock · 21-05-2010 03:49PM

sink wrote: »

To which part are you seeking clarification? Whether how life formed is relevant to Christianity, or whether I believe that?

Neither. I was hoping you would get the point and stop making proclamations on how this forum is run and what subjects it deals with.

PDN · 21-05-2010 03:52PM

krudler wrote: »

"just" created DNA? they werent boiling an egg, or is it Gods magic that makes water boil as well?

Impressive as this scientific achievement is, it's not quite the same as creating a universe measuring billions of light years is it?

Turtwig · 21-05-2010 03:56PM

ISAW wrote: »

I just told you:) The cartoon depicts someond saying i dont understand and people saying "That's okay call it God"
It isn't funny to analyse humour but if you want it exactly

the epistemological domain through which ontological investigation in a one to one relationship with real world observations is conducted is depicted as bounded by all elements concerned only with deity and this is not necessarily the case.

In other words "call it God" is not mutually exclusive nor significantly encompassing as an answer. "call it science" could also be substituted in some cases of ignorance but then it would not be a joke about religion being equated with ignorance would it?

And I just explained to you the flaw in your comparison with God to the likes of causation violation, black holes etc. Each one of these concepts is a falsifiable one. God isn't. Furthermore, it may be that what we find in reality is incomprehensible but that's doesn't change the what reality is e.g this is utterly ridiculous - it's an oscillation that is both moving and not moving at the same time. The problem with the God Concept is people stick it into things that just don't have an explanation yet.
Having an explanation that you don't understand because it's too counter intuitive is one thing, making up an untestable explanation because you don't have an explanation is another thing.

Turtwig · 21-05-2010 03:59PM

PDN wrote: »

Impressive as this scientific achievement is, it's not quite the same as creating a universe measuring billions of light years is it?

Well, strictly speaking as we don't know how the universe was created we can't actually answer that question. Who knows, the creation of universe may be a much simpler event than creating life.

Artificial Life Created

Comments