Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Caecilian]

Its really ironic that one of our resident brain-dead christians is coming out with this 'abiogenesis is impossible' bullshit just when we really are seeing some significant breakthroughs in origins of life research.

The most important recent discovery is that amino acids have a chemical affinity for the RNA which codes for them. This raises the possibility that the very complex system of DNA translation extant in all living organisms is the evolutionary descendant of a much simpler earlier system which was able to self-organize spontaneously. New Scientist article here.

A second major breakthrough relates to the environment in which abiogenesis took place. The latest research points strongly towards geothermal vents. Article here.

And then finally, of course, theres the work on artificially duplicating DNA which Adrian cited.

Altogether, truly exciting stuff. Pity that AngelThMan can't see that. What a jerk.

[Minimalist]

Science advances in little steps, Junior.

We are now closer than ever to putting your fucking god on the unemployment line for good.

And what a great day that will be. I hope we both live long enough to see it....for different reasons.

[Tiberius]

A living cell has never been replicated from inanimate matter in a laboratory or elsewhere, and never will be.

Just one question for you (since you continually ignore my posts despite saying I'm a "gentlemen" for responding without insulting you).

Why won't we ever create living cells from inanimate matter?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

AngelThMan Wrote: A living cell has never been created from inanimate matter in a laboratory nor elsewhere, and never will be.

Funny you should say that. As it turns out,they just have;it was on the news here last night.

Using four bottles of chemicals and a computer, scientists at laboratories in Maryland and California, led by genome pioneer Craig Venter, succeeded in creating life -- a bacterial organism. Venter and his teams of
scientists created what they call "synthetic cells" and named the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides. Although there are no immediate practical applications for the artificially created organism, Craig Venter and his researchers are hoping that the knowledge gained can be applied with regard to other practical future endeavors. The findings were announced Thursday through the journal Science.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article...ife_a.html

[AngelThMan]

Why won't we ever create living cells from inanimate matter?

It can only happen with God's input. Everyone's up in arms about it, but it's what I believe, sorry.

I've been meaning to respond to some of your other posts. They're just more involved, and I haven't had much time lately. But I will.

---

So let's make something clear. A living cell has never been replicated from inanimate matter in a laboratory or elsewhere, and never will be.

That was very arrogant...

This would be very arrogant if to me this was just about some philosophy debate, or if the measurable standard here was only discussion etiquette. But it's way more than that. I was affirming my belief in God.

[Paul the Human]

It can only happen with God's input. Everyone's up in arms about it, but it's what I believe, sorry.

We know that is what you believe, Angel, and you know that we do not believe it, which makes your statement a form of preaching. It is ignorant and intellectually dishonest to claim that something will never happen, especially on the heels of an advancement that brings us one step closer. Whether your imaginary friend exists or not, this is an amazing advancement in science and the implications are astounding in both good and frightening ways. Your belief in fairy tales is clouding your perspective. Believe me when I tell you that not all theists are so willfully ignorant about such things. What scientists have done and discovered cannot be denied and if that makes you afraid that your god might not be real... then your faith is not what it aught to be, perhaps.

[Ace Otana]

It can only happen with God's input. Everyone's up in arms about it, but it's what I believe, sorry.

Fine, if that is what you believe.
But, aren't you a little worried that your belief could be disproved by science eventually?
Science and technology is getting better everyday, and just recently they made a break through as you know. I think it's only a matter of time.
So how strongly do you believe it can't be done? Sure they have been trying this for hundreds of years but technology today is far greater than ever before and getting better each day.

Your belief that it can't be done can be disproved, and I think it will at some point.

[tackattack]

@Ace- I know it wasn't directed at me but I'd answer "But, aren't you a little worried that your belief could be disproved by science eventually?" with- no, not really. God exists or doesn't I'm open to both possibilities and look forward to future scientific and philosophical endeavors.

[Ace Otana]

@Ace- I know it wasn't directed at me but I'd answer "But, aren't you a little worried that your belief could be disproved by science eventually?" with- no, not really. God exists or doesn't I'm open to both possibilities and look forward to future scientific and philosophical endeavors.

I was refering to his belief that abiogenesis is not possible. That belief can be disproved.
Personaly, I dislike the idea of there being a god. I dislike the idea of going to either heaven or hell.
If there is some kind of judgement thing were I get to speak to this unrational god. I would ask to be sent into oblivion.
After asking a few questions first of course.

[Welsh cake]

As Craig Venter explains it, DNA is like software for living organisms. So in the same way that an artificial heart, or a synthetic body part can be built and incorporated into a living human being, it was only a matter of time before this software called genome could be constructed and incorporated into a living cell.

Craig Venter was only using that as an analogy so people could understand how it works better.

This has nothing to do with abiogenesis, or the experiments that have been conducted to prove it. So let's make something clear. A living cell has never been replicated from inanimate matter in a laboratory or elsewhere, and never will be.

Its an advancement into understanding abiogenesis - a scientific breakthrough. That was a poor choice of words from you because that's exactly what Craig Venter and his team have accomplished with a man-made genome of a bacterium from scratch, it's a synthetic life form, which also replicates. To replicate (Verb) is "to make a copy (replica) of". Life by definition is also self-replicating. Within genetics replication (or cell division such as mitosis or meiosis) is the process whereby DNA makes a copy of itself before cell division.

It can only happen with God's input. Everyone's up in arms about it, but it's what I believe, sorry.

Let me get this straight. You disregard this feat, a defining moment in biology, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years research at an estimated cost of $40m because you believe a God formed man from dust, and breathed into his nostrils the "breath of life" so he could become a living soul?

What the hell does that belief have anything to do with biological life as we know it to be? What does the "breath of life" or "living soul" even supposed to mean Angel? It’s asinine to the extreme.

This would be very arrogant if to me this was just about some philosophy debate, or if the measurable standard here was only discussion etiquette. But it's way more than that. I was affirming my belief in God.

Accept some responsibility young man. Even when I was a theist I recognised a belief in God does not give you a free pass to behave like an arrogant condensing prick around others.