CNN Gets 'Synthetic Life' Right in the Headlines

[Tiberius]

you accused me of being willing to defend the position that if scientists don't create 'something from nothing' they aren't creating life from scratch and that is a position only a creationist would defend.

I didn't accuse you of anything. I also highly doubt your assertion that only a creationist would defend such a position, but that's another story. As I said before, I didn't accuse you of being a creationist, nor did I create a strawman of your position.

I know that it was hypothetical but it was still a straw man of my position that you framed as a position I would defend.

Y'know you can't exactly have a hypothetical that is also a strawman right? A strawman is where you argue against a position not held by your opponent. A hypothetical is where you bring up a scenario that is not being discussed and build an assertion based on the interpretation of your opponent's current views.

There is a big difference between saying "If X, you say Y" and "If X, I bet you'd say Y". The first (if untrue) is an assertion that could lead to a strawman. The second is a hypothetical, where the ability of the person asserting to be wrong is acknowledged in the wording ("I bet").

I did object and I did argue against your assertion.

Whilst accusing me of commiting logical fallacies which I did not commit. Hence my charge that you seem content on playing the victim and appealing to emotion rather than actually concentrating on my points.

I thought maybe you were drunk because my concerns on the first post of your blog were perfectly reasonable... i wasn't trying to insult you as you did me when you called my comments 'stupid'. sorry for thinking you might have been drunk. sheesh.

I never said your comments weren't unreasonable. You misunderstood what they'd done; I don't have a problem with that. I explained what they'd done, and you went off on a tangent and asked if I was drunk. I took that as an insult, and called it a stupid comment, which I still believe it was. If you want to come across as clever in a debate, you don't go around asking if your opponent is drunk…it's a very stupid thing to do.

Anyway, I accept your apology; despite the obvious lack of sincerity given by the 'sheesh' at the end.

you were the first to call my posts stupid on your thread and treat me stupid on this thread even when I've tried to clarify my position. I feel the same way, the more you treat me as if I'm stupid saying i fail to understand something or my comments are stupid the more I'll emphasize your stupidity.

I called your post asking if I was drunk 'stupid' because you had the nerve to ask me if I was drunk. I haven't treated you as stupid in this thread; I've constantly criticised your understanding of what the team did, as well as your debate tactics. If you think that is the same as me treating you as stupid, then I don't know what to tell you, but I treat people who are stupid in a totally different way. There is no shame in not understanding something; it is not the same as being stupid.

Caecilian came up with a good analogy to explain why 'synthetic life' is ambiguous. You don't think that Venture's research may aid in abiogenesis research?

No, I don't think it may aid in abiogenesis research. They are completely different areas of research, as I said before. Venter created a DNA strand and inserted it into a cell. Abiogenesis doesn't even involve the creation of DNA, it involves creating the building blocks of life from non-living matter. There is no abiogenesis theory that deals with the creation of DNA life-forms, namely because we believe that RNA was far more likely to have developed. Even in Venter created an RNA strand, I don't think it would help towards abiogenesis research, because they used a chemical synthesizer, and designed the entire strand.