PDA

View Full Version : trying to create life out of non living cells



Lyndie
Sep 10th 2008, 07:47 PM
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html

First off, this just seems like a horribly bad idea. Second, I think it's the evolutionists trying to disprove creation by God. Hopefully it won't work.

teddyv
Sep 10th 2008, 07:50 PM
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html

First off, this just seems like a horribly bad idea. Second, I think it's the evolutionists trying to disprove creation by God. Hopefully it won't work.

What would you think if they are successful?:hmm:

Lyndie
Sep 10th 2008, 08:04 PM
It wouldn't change my opinion on creationism. But if they are successful, the life form they create wouldn't be sustainable. When we add dna, rna, etc into the equation, I think the possibility of creating a sentient life is minimal. Kind of like cloning, when you keep cloning something, over time it breaks down. Kind of like making a copy of a copy of a copy. There is still alot we don't know about life and all the intricacies about how we (our bodies) work.

A820djd
Sep 10th 2008, 09:47 PM
It was named "successful". In whatever it did, they did tests and I guess it worked.. 2012 and they're going to recreate the "super LHC"

faroutinmt
Sep 10th 2008, 09:51 PM
You know what I find humorous about all this? They believe that life was created through random, chaotic happenstance, and yet, with all their scientific knowledge and technology, they still can't make it happen. :)

They are only trying to manipulate the elements which God already created and which are governed by the natural laws which He set in motion.

Saved7
Sep 11th 2008, 12:10 AM
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html

First off, this just seems like a horribly bad idea. Second, I think it's the evolutionists trying to disprove creation by God. Hopefully it won't work.


Sooooo, :hmm:

my wildest guess would be that the athiests are getting desperate to disprove God????:hmm::cool:;)

A820djd
Sep 11th 2008, 04:27 PM
Sooooo, :hmm:

my wildest guess would be that the athiests are getting desperate to disprove God????:hmm::cool:;)

Ah well, God did what he did, so it doesn't matter what they do anymore... Boy o boy, I would love a few billion dollars to spend on animal shelters and a new jacket for winter. :rofl:

HisLeast
Sep 11th 2008, 04:35 PM
I wish them much success.

Clavicula_Nox
Sep 11th 2008, 04:59 PM
I don't see how scientific work is always linked to those evil evolutionists trying to disprove God, and oh, look at how stupid they are they can't get anything right, lol!

Seriously.


We can grow replacement arms, legs, and ears for people, but I guess that's just a symptom of those stupid evil evolutionists, right?

Clavicula_Nox
Sep 11th 2008, 06:01 PM
Also, I bet Spore is just the evil evolutionist trying to dis-prove God, too.

Luke34
Sep 14th 2008, 01:20 AM
You know what I find humorous about all this? They believe that life was created through random, chaotic happenstance, and yet, with all their scientific knowledge and technology, they still can't make it happen. Wait, since when does "something took place through random chance" mean "scientists should be able to recreate that thing"? I'm not getting the connection here. And I also don't get why it would be funny if that were true.

Also (to the OP), it's rather ungracious to say you hope a scientist's research fails so that you don't have to think about anything that suggests that maybe not everything creationists have ever said about creationism is completely totally correct in every way.

Sounds like an awesome experiment.

Luke34
Sep 14th 2008, 01:23 AM
I don't see how scientific work is always linked to those evil evolutionists trying to disprove God, and oh, look at how stupid they are they can't get anything right, lol! Or how it's fair to go "Evolution is a religious belief because it can't be recreated in the lab!" (which is a fallacious and untrue thing to say, of course), and then, when scientists actually do attempt to recreate one aspect of evolution, say that they are "trying to disprove God." I mean, what do you want them to do?

faroutinmt
Sep 14th 2008, 02:38 AM
Wait, since when does "something took place through random chance" mean "scientists should be able to recreate that thing"? I'm not getting the connection here. And I also don't get why it would be funny if that were true.

Also (to the OP), it's rather ungracious to say you hope a scientist's research fails so that you don't have to think about anything that suggests that maybe not everything creationists have ever said about creationism is completely totally correct in every way.

Sounds like an awesome experiment.

Evolutionists believe that all the pattern, all the design, all the arrangement, function, systems, natural laws, and life itself, came about through random, chaotic chance combining of atoms and molecules. If something is truly random chance (the way they say it is), then it does not come about through order and purpose. We can take things which exist in nature (things which operate and function within the natural laws) and cause them to happen by the purposeful means of applying those laws to them: selective breeding, harnessing energy from water, wind and sun, etc. Yet, man cannot create the very life which they think came from random chance. The reason is because the origin of life was brought about by God.

The bible makes fun of idols (false gods of wood and stone) to show us how ridiculous they are, to turn our foolish hearts away from them. In the same way, when man attempts to prove that God is not the originator of life, that cosmos came rather from chaos, I will laugh, because I know it is foolish. It is both humorous and sad. Listen, I laugh the same way at myself, at my own foolishness, when I find myself looking to other things for what only God can give to me: when I trust in other things when I should be trusting in God, when I seek happiness from things when that happiness is only found in God, etc. There is humor, not because it is really funny, but because it is all so foolish.

It is against all reason and observable data from the study of the universe to suppose that when you blow a car up it could become an elephant. The second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. Yet, no evolutionary biologist would agree because the only other option is creation by God and that us unthinkable to them.

Ayala
Sep 14th 2008, 02:46 AM
I say more power to their efforts. I'd be curious to see what they succeed (or fail) in doing here. It holds no sway in my belief of where we come from.


Also, I bet Spore is just the evil evolutionist trying to dis-prove God, too.

Have you played it, BTW? I was considering getting it but I wasn't sure.

Luke34
Sep 14th 2008, 04:11 AM
Evolutionists believe that all the pattern, all the design, all the arrangement, function, systems, natural laws, and life itself, came about through random, chaotic chance combining of atoms and molecules. Nope, they don't, not even the atheistic ones (not that it should matter): "Random" suggests that there is no more probability of one combination of molecules than any other one, which is clearly untrue. And many (most) evolutionists, such as myself, are theistic evolutionists, although obviously that has no bearing on the science itself.


We can take things which exist in nature (things which operate and function within the natural laws) and cause them to happen by the purposeful means of applying those laws to them: selective breeding, harnessing energy from water, wind and sun, etc. Yet, man cannot create the very life which they think came from random chance. The reason is because the origin of life was brought about by God. Again, you can't say that because humans are able to duplicate some natural processes, they should be able to do this for all of them. See: supernovae, earthquakes, the production of crude oil from organic material, photosynthesis. Just because human's can't reproduce these things doesn't mean they don't happen. The creation of life from nonlife is currently in this group; that may now change.


There is humor, not because it is really funny, but because it is all so foolish. So it's foolish to, um, perform experiments? Recall that you actually don't know what the scientists' "motives" are, and that in fact you just made them up out of nowhere.


It is against all reason and observable data from the study of the universe to suppose that when you blow a car up it could become an elephant....Uh, what was that?


The second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. Yet, no evolutionary biologist would agree because the only other option is creation by God and that us unthinkable to them. Or because they, y'know, understand the second law of thermodynamics, which states that "The total entropy of a closed system never decreases," and not, as certain creationists would have it, that "Order never comes from disorder." The key words here are total and closed; it is possible for one part of a system to decrease in entropy as long as the total does not decrease, and life on Earth is in no way a "closed" system (neither is Earth itself, for that matter). It is absurd to state that the second law indicates that nature can never produce order from disorder, because this is demonstratably not true: Try snowflakes, for example. The creation of snowflakes from random water droplets does not decrease the total entropy of the earth, and even if it did, earth is not a closed system (it recieves energy from the sun and gives off energy into space).

TEITZY
Sep 14th 2008, 10:58 AM
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html

First off, this just seems like a horribly bad idea. Second, I think it's the evolutionists trying to disprove creation by God. Hopefully it won't work.


Actually if it works it will only strengthen the argument for creation, since it will prove that intelligence is needed to create life! Abiogenesis is absurd and totally unscientific (ALL the evidence we observe in the universe says that life comes from living organisms). Abiogenesis is an evolutionary presumption based on zero evidence (blind faith IOW).

Cheers
Leigh

tt1106
Sep 14th 2008, 12:17 PM
I have faith because I see the evidence of God in my life.
I firmly believe that in the image of God does not necessarily mean that we look like God. I think it also means we inherited some of God's characters like intelligence, compassion, mercy etc. God also made us curious.
And Satan has dominion on Earth, although God rules the universe. It does not surprise me that we are getting close to this. I believe in the end, God is seeking to redeem the true believers.
Let them create their little nucleic acid pseudo-life. LET them post that God is a myth on Snopes. I still will choose to exalt the name of my savior and praise the God who made me. Perhaps God's plan is to create an overwhelming amount of so-called evidence against him and stand on the Bible and ask, Who believes that I created the Universe and Man and woman out of the dust of the Earth.
I will still raise my hands and proclaim his name. I have put my faith in man before and it really didn't get me to where I am after I immediately put my faith in God alone!
Sorry for the Rant.

faroutinmt
Sep 14th 2008, 02:04 PM
Nope, they don't, not even the atheistic ones (not that it should matter): "Random" suggests that there is no more probability of one combination of molecules than any other one, which is clearly untrue. And many (most) evolutionists, such as myself, are theistic evolutionists, although obviously that has no bearing on the science itself.

Again, you can't say that because humans are able to duplicate some natural processes, they should be able to do this for all of them. See: supernovae, earthquakes, the production of crude oil from organic material, photosynthesis. Just because human's can't reproduce these things doesn't mean they don't happen. The creation of life from nonlife is currently in this group; that may now change.

So it's foolish to, um, perform experiments? Recall that you actually don't know what the scientists' "motives" are, and that in fact you just made them up out of nowhere.

...Uh, what was that?

Or because they, y'know, understand the second law of thermodynamics, which states that "The total entropy of a closed system never decreases," and not, as certain creationists would have it, that "Order never comes from disorder." The key words here are total and closed; it is possible for one part of a system to decrease in entropy as long as the total does not decrease, and life on Earth is in no way a "closed" system (neither is Earth itself, for that matter). It is absurd to state that the second law indicates that nature can never produce order from disorder, because this is demonstratably not true: Try snowflakes, for example. The creation of snowflakes from random water droplets does not decrease the total entropy of the earth, and even if it did, earth is not a closed system (it recieves energy from the sun and gives off energy into space).

"That opens the possibility that one day, in the distant past, an RNA-like molecule wandered into a fatty acid and started replicating. That random event, through billions of evolutionary iterations, researchers believe, created life as we know it."

These are their own words from the article. Notice how this person says that life as we know it was created from a random event.

Luke34
Sep 14th 2008, 06:29 PM
"That opens the possibility that one day, in the distant past, an RNA-like molecule wandered into a fatty acid and started replicating. That random event, through billions of evolutionary iterations, researchers believe, created life as we know it."

These are their own words from the article. Notice how this person says that life as we know it was created from a random event.
OK, for a certain definition of "random" (i.e., there was no more likelihood of that particular RNA combining with that particular fatty acid molecule than of it not), but it's still not really right to say life resulted from "random combinations of atoms and molecules," because atoms and molecules have certain properties that make them more likely to combine in certain ways than in others. This is pretty much just semantics, though. In any case, "random" in a scientific sense need not connote meaninglessness on a metaphysical level; we may say that God guided the creation of life from RNA and fatty acids, but trying to bring this belief into the actual science of it is obviously absurd and useless. So the majority of evolutionists who believe in a God (for whom I will now presume to speak, probably not entirely correctly) accept both that, in a scientific/empirical sense, life was created when an RNA molecule happened to combine with a fatty acid molecule, but also believe that God was behind this process in some way. There is no inherent contradiction in this.

faroutinmt
Sep 14th 2008, 08:18 PM
OK, for a certain definition of "random" (i.e., there was no more likelihood of that particular RNA combining with that particular fatty acid molecule than of it not), but it's still not really right to say life resulted from "random combinations of atoms and molecules," because atoms and molecules have certain properties that make them more likely to combine in certain ways than in others. This is pretty much just semantics, though. In any case, "random" in a scientific sense need not connote meaninglessness on a metaphysical level; we may say that God guided the creation of life from RNA and fatty acids, but trying to bring this belief into the actual science of it is obviously absurd and useless. So the majority of evolutionists who believe in a God (for whom I will now presume to speak, probably not entirely correctly) accept both that, in a scientific/empirical sense, life was created when an RNA molecule happened to combine with a fatty acid molecule, but also believe that God was behind this process in some way. There is no inherent contradiction in this.

Well, of course I believe that God used the combining of certain molecules with other molecules to bring about life. And, of course, I agree with what you said.

I want you to know that I love science. I am grateful that God has given people the ability and understanding to use science to improve life. Science has been a wonderful contribution to our lives. I am all for scientific experiment. However, I don't believe that God used billions of years of evolution to bring about His creation.

I truly believe that, as the bible says, God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I certainly believe that He used the combining of atoms and molecules to form His creation. I do not believe that all animals came from a single simple cell organism in the way evolutionists believe. I believe, as the bible says, that God made all animals after their kinds. I believe that He made these animals of differing kinds in one day. The fact that they have similar structures and features does not imply that they all originated from the same ancestor. Rather, it means that God gave them similar features for similar functions. Now, I do believe that He gave each kind the ability to change in some ways (although that change is limited) to adapt to their environment.

As a theistic evolutionist, my guess is that you believe that God used billions of years of evolution to create all forms of life. He certainly could have, but I just don't believe that He did. The bible says that death came about through sin. Therefore, there could have been no death (humans and animals) before sin. Scripture says that in the beginning God created them male and female. They were sinless and it was only after they sinned that death entered into the world. For theistic evolution to be true, there would have had to have been billions of years of death before sin.

Sorry to get a little off topic. Again, I am all for scientific experiments. But, I am not for scientific experiments which only try to prove evolution. There is so much more good that science can do for us without wasting time with that.

Luke34
Sep 14th 2008, 09:27 PM
Sorry to get a little off topic. Again, I am all for scientific experiments. But, I am not for scientific experiments which only try to prove evolution. There is so much more good that science can do for us without wasting time with that. While I don't "agree" with some of your post, I at least respect your views, and since this isn't the thread in which to debate them I will not do so. But I thought I should say this: Science depends on experiment, and all hypotheses and theories are formed and strengthened through it. While scientists here are not "trying to prove evolution," since a) That's already been done and b) Evolution by natural selection is much too far-reaching of a theory to by proven or disproven with a single experiment, they are attempting to test, through experiment, whether a certain process can lead to the development of living material from non-living. The goal (or a goal, I guess, but probably the most significant one) of science has always been to contribute to our understanding of the natural world, and the results of this experiment--whether positive or negative--will do so, by contributing to our knowledge about the processes by which life arose on this planet.