What will you believe if science recreates the beginings of life?

[Truthmatters]

do you understand what experiments are designed to do?

 

[manifold]

test a hypothesis

 

[xsited1]

Refreshing News: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

They are very close and if they succeed how will that effect your current beliefs?

I'm hoping they'll eventually be able to create better looking female porn stars.

 

[WillowTree]

I'm hoping they'll eventually be able to create better looking female porn stars.

with or without brains?

 

[glockmail]

Refreshing News: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

They are very close and if they succeed how will that effect your current beliefs?

None whatsoever. Just because someone can build a car doesn't mean that someone else didn't invent it. *shrug*

 

[xsited1]

with or without brains?

They can all be liberals... no brains, of course.

 

[frazzledgear]

Refreshing News: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

They are very close and if they succeed how will that effect your current beliefs?

I find it pretty interesting that people have a real NEED to believe that something that we know for a fact does not occur in nature -somehow occurred "naturally" anyway. Even though the word "naturally" means it is something seen to occur in nature, not unexpected, not unusual at all! LOL

This is problem of the insistence that "life 'naturally' originated from non-living goo" people. It makes an assumption about the origin of the physical world itself. Either the origin of all things is eternal, impersonal particles/energy and laws of physics -or the origin is an Eternal Mind. Where some scientists err with their assumption the former is the truth and the latter is not -is that it is impossible because the origin of matter cannot be matter itself. That is patently false circular thinking that not only answers nothing regarding the origin of the physical world -but CANNOT answer it. Any scientific theory based on this false assumption and premise -is therefore already flawed -sometimes significantly so, sometimes much less so depending on what was being theorized and studied.

This article does not show that scientists are close to "creating" life in the lab from nonliving, inorganic material -and specifically says it means no such thing. That is the author's take on this only and it isn't as interesting without that hook, is it? Even though he had to turn around and admit scientists said it meant no such thing. Scientists are only closer to understanding subcellular chemical activity at best. Chemical reactions are not "life", sorry -and that is all this is. A series of chemical reactions on the molecular level being studied and documented. But it cannot produce a living organism in the lab -not ever.

That is because it is a scientific fact that nonliving, nonconscious inorganic chemicals cannot ever produce a living, conscious organism. A living organism -LIFE - can only be produced by another one. That is a scientific fact -never been seen to result in ANY other way but this in nature. But human beings have spent literally hundreds of years trying to prove otherwise while insisting that surely nonliving materials can not only produce an independent life -but that it is somehow "natural" that it would. Since we know that NEVER happens in nature -there wouldn't be a darn thing "natural" about it whatsoever.

 

[Diuretic]

How can "we know for a fact" that something doesn't happen?

 

[Ravi]

I think life originated from living goo, not non-living goo.

 

[Diuretic]

But how did living goo become living goo?

 

[Againsheila]

The day you die you will know. One way or the other. Either there was a God. Or. not. Too bad we won't be able to compare notes.

Let me just throw this out into the wind.


Do you know how many things had to be just perfect in order for life to flourish on the planet earth? Perfect.

I bet you $100,000 we will be able to compare notes after death.......now being able to pay off that bet, well that's another thing completely.

 

[Ravi]

But how did living goo become living goo?

Heck if I know.

 

[Anguille]

Heck if I know.

You sprinkle fairy dust on it.

 

[editec]

But how did living goo become living goo?

Gurus?

I know that given the chance, should I actually meet Jesus, I hope I have the balls to say

"Jesus? You're Jesus!? That's odd... You don't even look remotely Guruish"

 

[Anguille]

Cod!! not another bad pun!!!

You should apostle-a-gize for that one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As much as it pains me I feel obligated to give credit where it is due, and if this discussion were a competition, DevNell would be kicking all your asses single handedly.

Allow me to repeat the most salient point: Whatever the results of this study, it would prove absolutely nothing about whether life could or could not have happened randomly.

why do you hate me?

:shadow:

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

None whatsoever. Just because someone can build a car doesn't mean that someone else didn't invent it. *shrug*

define/list what constitutes a car.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But how did living goo become living goo?

God had a bad case of diarrhea?

 

[random3434]

Cod!! not another bad pun!!!

You should apostle-a-gize for that one.

Aprayerently they don't get it.

 

[Anguille]

why do you hate me?

:shadow:

I think I'm going to get a little verklempt.