Artifical life

It should be noted that a lot of Creationists do not even consider insects to be "life", because they are not nefesh creatures with blood.the bible states that the "life is in the blood".While we should expect lifeforms to certainly require an intelligent agency to put in the quartinary coding, I don't necessarily think that we should expect supernatural activity to be necessary when we are basically obeying the priniciples of nature.i.e. It would be very odd if DNA did not work, given that we would expect it to in an orderly universe whereby certain mechanics should work, as they are set-up to work.

I agree.Technically, they only FORMED life,by plagiarizing God's DNA coding.Basically, they are replicating God's designs and seeing if those principles work to give you an artificial replicating cell.The bible also says that God formed man from the dust of the ground, which tallies with the use of arranging certain matter to get synthesis of proteins etc...It seems that the account suggests that a nefesh being with blood and nostrils requires God's breath of life. Whether this means His literal breath or air which he provides, it is hard to know. But the spirit or soul -element would be the real problem.If, for example, humans could create an artifical human, would God give it a soul and spirit? Would he be obliged to give it a spirit because he has ordained the principles of nature?We can atleast conclude that yes, at this level, there needs to be somebody there to put in the coding. Because afterall, that's what happened - scientists created synthetic DNA.I do not know any examples of spontaneous generation as of yet.So my opinion is that this shows intelligent input is required, whereas it leads to difficulty for believers, in that we don't know if lifeforms can be purely mechanical.Ofcourse, this is a long way off a human.

hi RAZD, have to say I disagree with you on this one. The only time we see results is when men mess with DNA.I don't see that mutations have any part to play here in this example.Unless we see a mutation that produces a new species, that is new morphologically speaking, then the ToE claims still remain unproven.You see, technically, we have to see something new. With the fruit flies example, no mutation actually led to something other than a fruit fly.I don't want to see a new better more efficient hand, I want to see something better than a hand, that has never before existed, if the claim is that every single limb came from NS + M.It is not too much to ask, in my opinion, given the scale of the claim.All the best. (just popping in to give my two cents)

Logic REQUIRES that a claim, a big claim, is technically proved.With the ToE, it does claim that every single diverse design came to be through NS and M. Therefore, to prove this, you have to show a new design, just ONE new morphology. Showing stability on every level, and organisms remaining the same, does not match that claim.Secondly, while the ToE doesn't predict fruit flies will become not fruit flies, as that is not a necessary consequent for a normalized selection, what I am looking for on a personal level, is a very stron evidence of the major claim that says that things like fruit flies came from other completely different things.If you take a human from 5 thousand years ago and compare him to me, sure - you can CLAIM he's a transitional. And if you show speciation whereby there are no new morphological designs, sure you can CLAIM this leads to macro evolution, but on a logical level, technically you have not proved a thing.This is why for me, the ToE is a weak paradigm. The proof of it was always none-existent and yet it was accepted despite the powerful facts of design, because people don't want to believe in God, otherwise He is God and they are not, and that way they get to say their sins aren't sin.So, yeah - nothing to do with prediction, but everything to do with the soundness of a syllogism that would apparently prove the ToE.All you can do, is go for evidence of the ponen form, which is tenuous, if you are honest.This is all I am saying. All the best.(The claim that there is no mutational barrier or is a barrier, for me is exactly the same as stating; "this completely paralyzed person has been confined to this room" OR; "there is nothing stopping you from flying to the moon like superman.".) It is irrelevant because the power isn't there. If you continue with fruit flies they don't slowly become anything else.look up a frog, look at it's fossil. It was a frog, is a frog and will become a frog, while mutations were there. Look at a coelocanthe or a chambered nautilus. They were X are X and will be X.Those are the facts. Now sure - you can say, "ah but millions of years of evolution". Now that's fine - you're entitled to do that but I want to see facts of that and I don't. Simarly, you can create a phylogenetic tree, using creatures that ALREADY exist, and say that homologous features mean they evolved, but logically this doesn't prove they are related or that mutations did it.First prove the power of a mutation - that it can make a new design. The burden of proof is not upon us to prove it can't, when all the facts show it can't. (I believe I have argued excellently, my case. Ignore it as usual)bye for now.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Technically, anything with DNA is life. I won't argue against it. However, did I, before these discoveries, expect some kind of supernatural activity in order for DNA to work? I can't say I did, but thaty was what I was being told I thought, or some such thing about the breath of life.So, I am not saying that no true DNA puts sugar on it's chromosome, I am just saying that if I kill a fly, I don't really care much, or if I chop a plant to pieces, for me, this is not the same thing as chopping an evolutionist's head off. I just think it's a bit dishonest to place words in believer's mouths. I never claimed that I thought artificial DNA would not work. That would be like saying that I didn't think a frizby would work or wings I created wouldn't work.Why on earth wouldn't they if they obey the principles of nature?God made DNA to work. Artificial intelligence shows that it does indeed work. Now if a scientist created something other than DNA that worked, ex nihilo..............

Notice all those negatives?I don't see anything proving a connection, only proposed theoretics, of a hypothetical nature, representing a paradigm that basically proves itself by definition, without having to prove anything else.Now, a bacteria, or a fruit fly, or HIV, all reproduce thousands of times faster than humans.Therefore for such organisms, we should see their entire history over about a million years.However, what we see, is not one example of a new creation of unique morphology, but instead we see a bacteria flagellum becoming a bacteria flagellum, and surviving, and that is supposed to convince me?That is exactly like saying; " This man is the best football player to have ever existed, and now we will prove it by showing that he can kick a ball into a goal that is not manned by a goalkeeper. " I can't convince my reasoning brain that this is sufficient, IN ALL HONESTY, cavediver!I will never be convinced that God did not design humans. DNA alone contains code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.Now I go and look at all of the genius designs and how humans can only copy them. The torpedo fish has battery cells, that's how we invented the battery. The bacteria flagellum has a rotary motor that propels it through it's surroundings.It's all about personal beliefs, and your own reasoning.I believe it is so obvious we need God, and evolution by comparison, after looking into it for years, is just so feeble and unconvincing.Bye for now.

Infact design is factual. You can read this in the book, "In the beginning was information, by Dr Werner Gitt".I am not putting a strawman out there, I am saying that the ToE is weak and that logically you can't prove it at all. I know how science works, as I have told you several times pertaining to induction, modus ponen, tentative confirmation versus powerful falsification via the modus tollens. By all means ignore me again.If it works for you, fine, but for me facts versus evidence, facts will always win.Designs are factual - they are simply there, and whether mainstream scientists take this seriously or not, will not remove such truth.I do not care that scientists reject design, because I know why.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PARTICIPATIONI would apreciate folk that have debated with me in this thread to read my blog Blog not found. In my blog I take time to discuss things. I would hope you can read some of these short topics, to get an understanding of my reasoning, without judging me, I am grateful for you to be open minded.Bye.(Excerpt from blog as example of how I defend evolution against irreducible complexity Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.