|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
This I pose would be impossible because science would be using elements that God already created. The scientist would be doing no more that he does at a grosser level with IVF. Science would have to make up a totally new form of life which didn't involve the design used by God: cells, DNA etc. God of the gaps is it? Not a very good creator, allways hiding just out of reach. God forbid we ever prove him This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-26-2005 12:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
So, how is God usefull? If he creates a universe which is self sufficient, seemingly devoid of him, filled with things that can happen without him. What does this God do? Does he serve a purpose?
ABE: If we create a human from scratch, in the lab. And say we even improve on the design and clean up that DNA code. Maybe add some better indentation and comments here and there. And this person is a better person than you or me (geneticaly anyway) we just improved Gods design. So where did the guys soul come from? Does god hide in the wastepaper basket in the Lab and when our hypothetical human comes to life he jumpes out and sticks a soul in him? Does this not seem a bit silly? This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-26-2005 12:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I suppose creating a universe is in itself fairly useful and, I suspect, rather laborious. Good point. Heck, if such a being exists why is this universe usefull to him at all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Hey LauraG,
Here is a rephrasing of iano's post in order to drive home the point:
Lets presuppose Invisible Pink Unicorns exist. Now supposing science managed to make a human. The first problem is to show that Invisible Pink Unicorns couldn't have had a hand in it. This I pose would be impossible because science would be using elements that Invisible Pink Unicorns already created. The scientist would be doing no more that he does at a grosser level with IVF. Science would have to make up a totally new form of life which didn't involve the design used by Invisible Pink Unicorns: cells, DNA etc. Thus Science cannot, of itself, make a human. Thus the problem never needs to arise. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-26-2005 01:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
3. On the other hand, according to Christian tradition, He wants us to believe in Him. He seems to clamor for one's belief so urgently that one suspects that He needs our belief in order to convince Himself of his own existence I love this! What a great quote I may use this in my sig.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Meaning that the argument is totaly cirular and you can presupose anything in the place of god. Essentially, an argument that proves too much, proves nothing.
iano's argument, if considered valid, can be used to prove any invisible, undetectable, uncorporial, supernatural entetie. That's what I was pointing out. The argument in and of itself proves nothing and is useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Lets see if Atheistic Science can create it's very own lifeform out of inanimate matter. Do you consider amino acids inanimate? If you do, then the article about synthesis of polio vrii is a perfect example.
Then we'll be able to compare God-of-the-gaps and the God-of-Science. No such thing as a God-of-science. Science is a tool based on deduction and logic. It is a methodology for examining and testing the world around us.
And no copying mind. Well, what about artificial inteligence? There are some remarkable things going on the field of computer AI. The future may very well bring with it 'conscious' machines. What would you make of this?
Copying and using Gods ideas such as RNA and proteins and amino acids is eazi-peezi-lemon-squeezi. Well, you are presupposing a god. Further, by this logic, you can say buildings are easy since they are made using gods ideas "bricks, metal, glass, etc.". It's a silly argument.
Let them think up their very own life form - improve on this accidental jumble. It's original art we want to see - not some old low grade forgery.... Sometime in the future we may be able to create such things. But today, hear and now, we are creating AI software that is exceedingly sophisticated. What would you make of purely synthetic life, such as AI?
God of the Gaps indeed - except it's a very, very big gap. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you though Well, God has been running from gap to gap for over 6000 years of human history now. I wouldn't be surprised if he will soon have to clear out of another one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
So, because scientific discoveries have been used to cause harm, this means we shouldn't persue science?
The same nuclear energy that gave us Hiroshima gave us Nuclear power, radiation therapy against cancer, and many other usefull inovations. Religion can be blamed equaly, if not more so, for attrocity. I would venture, from climbing ages and increased advances in human health, that science is making more headway in improving the world than religion. I have yet to see god put food in the mouth of a hungry child, yet I see scientists, doctors, nutritionists, etc. doing this every day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Creationists say God exists but the evidence isn't physically tangible. You'd possibly say he doesn't exist because the evidence isn't physically tangible. Presupposing he does exist is the same as presupposing he doesn't. It's not circular. It stalemate. It is not staelmate. You can presupose anything in the place of god. If you don't have evidence for something you cannot assume it. Because of this science has much more going for it, and religion has only faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
It would be helpful if you could make some connection between Religion and God though. Like, point out what man does in the name of God has to do with God. So your god has no relation to religion? Seems like he just fled from another gap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Rephrasing alters the issue not one iota Yaro. The point remains the same. Scientists manipulating pre-existing building blocks to do something else says nothing about where those blocks came from. Nothing at all... An neither does positing a god. What does suggesting a magical, undetactable, all-powerfull, being explain about anything in the universe? Nothing. Your explaining a mystery with a mystery, which equals more mystery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I've got all the evidence in the world.God is patently supernatural thus evidence won't be found in the natural. We can only experience the natural. If we canno't find evidence for god in what we experience, then what evidence is there for him at all?
Science can only look at the natural and isn't designed to look anywhere else. If you decide that your going to limit the evidence only to that which is physical then it's not surprising that physical is all you se Can you prove that there is anything non-physical? A non-physical entety cannot be messured and cannot affect the natural world. How can we even establish the existence of such a thing.
Circular: "Objective is all there is (presumption) thus objective is all there is (conclusion) It is not a presuposition, it is infered from experience. We have only experienced the natural, thus we can only draw conclusions from the natural. By definition the supernatural does not interact with the natural. Therefore we cannot experience the supernatural. If such a thing exists, we can make no conclusions from it. It is patently useless to understanding the world we exist in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
wiat wait wait....
So if man makes religions, then he must make gods! Gods only come to being in religions.
And why not use God to make religions too. Well, the religions are usually the ones that ascribe attributes to a god. So religions create gods. Man creates religions, religions create gods, thus man creates gods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
At least the point made is now established (by your use of the word 'neither'). Which returns us to Laura's OP. Science manipulating existing life to create 'humans' will do nothing to affect the position of Creationist. Checkmate? Sure. But is the checkmate due to mear stubberness on the part of the beliver, or an actual evaluation of the evidence? I grant you that the OP would not tople creationism, but it does stack the evidence against it. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, why are you still calling it a chicken? You know what I mean?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Leave God out of it along the way by all means. There are no gaps that can't be by and large filled by a prior cause (except for theories - which are tentitive prior causes but no matter). The area of interest is when the prior causes dissappear into mystery. To presuppose that science will keep on pushing back forever and that mysteries will eventually be explained is as much a presumption as is Goddidit. If you say otherwise and have no basis for it then you have the faith of a theist. Your god is science. Is it not? There is only one problem with this. We have WHITNESSED science pushing god farther back into harder to reach gaps. We have never whitnessed god bringing anything into being. We have god on the retreat. ABE: If science has pushed god further and further back over these millenia, why should we assume god will ever materialize as a usefull explanation? This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-26-2005 05:50 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024