Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

trying to create life out of non living cells

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • trying to create life out of non living cells

    http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...ists-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.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Lyndie View Post
    http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...ists-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?
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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"

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Lyndie View Post
            http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...ists-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,

            my wildest guess would be that the athiests are getting desperate to disprove God????
            Don't seek too much knowledge. You just may be putting more weight on your shoulders than you're able to bare. Let God be the one to decide how quickly you grow.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Saved7 View Post
              Sooooo,

              my wildest guess would be that the athiests are getting desperate to disprove God????
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                I wish them much success.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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?
                  The minstrel boy to the war is gone,
                  In the ranks of death ye will find him;
                  His father's sword he hath girded on,
                  And his wild harp slung behind him;
                  "Land of Song!" said the warrior bard,
                  "Tho' all the world betray thee,
                  One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard,
                  One faithful harp shall praise thee!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Also, I bet Spore is just the evil evolutionist trying to dis-prove God, too.
                    The minstrel boy to the war is gone,
                    In the ranks of death ye will find him;
                    His father's sword he hath girded on,
                    And his wild harp slung behind him;
                    "Land of Song!" said the warrior bard,
                    "Tho' all the world betray thee,
                    One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard,
                    One faithful harp shall praise thee!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by faroutinmt View Post
                      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.
                      "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox View Post
                        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?
                        "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Luke34 View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox View Post
                            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.
                            Jeremy, a bondservant of the Lord.

                            Today is a good day to die for Christ.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by faroutinmt View Post
                              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.

                              Originally posted by faroutinmt View Post
                              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.

                              Originally posted by faroutinmt View Post
                              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.

                              Originally posted by faroutinmt View Post
                              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?

                              Originally posted by faroutinmt View Post
                              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).
                              "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X