PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Pro-lifers are gonna go postal over this.


Frankie
09-09-2008, 01:25 PM
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

BigCatDaddy
09-09-2008, 01:27 PM
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

Nah.

irishjayhawk
09-09-2008, 08:08 PM
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

Mr Luzcious
09-09-2008, 09:21 PM
Maybe you meant creationists? Either way, I doubt it.

RINGLEADER
09-09-2008, 09:25 PM
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

:shrug:

Eh. Actually, it's kind of cool.

irishjayhawk
09-09-2008, 10:35 PM
Maybe you meant creationists? Either way, I doubt it.

I expect a pope's statement eventually. "Playing god" is something many people would kill to stop.

ClevelandBronco
09-09-2008, 10:48 PM
I expect a pope's statement eventually. "Playing god" is something many people would kill to stop.

I doubt that the pope will be looking to kill anyone over it, nor probably will he encourage Catholics to riot and cause mayhem.

Wait until it hits the Islamic world. You might see some fireworks there.

irishjayhawk
09-09-2008, 11:03 PM
I doubt that the pope will be looking to kill anyone over it, nor probably will he encourage Catholics to riot and cause mayhem.

Wait until it hits the Islamic world. You might see some fireworks there.

You really think when more info comes out about this that it will only be Islam that erupts?

HonestChieffan
09-09-2008, 11:06 PM
who do you think will "erupt"?

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 01:13 AM
They haven't actually done it yet either, mind you.

ClevelandBronco
09-10-2008, 01:27 AM
You really think when more info comes out about this that it will only be Islam that erupts?

Don't look for Christianity to "erupt."

Some of us may comment, but there's no doubt in my mind that the Christian world won't "erupt."

(I guess you could make the claim that we erupted during the civil rights movement, but we haven't erupted for a while since then.)

Guru
09-10-2008, 02:01 AM
Don't see anything worth getting all worked up over in that article.

Jenson71
09-10-2008, 03:53 AM
I expect a pope's statement eventually.

You really think when more info comes out about this that it will only be Islam that erupts?

LMAO

Frankie
09-10-2008, 09:51 AM
Maybe you meant creationists? Either way, I doubt it.

That would have been better. Creationists. Thanks.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 09:53 AM
LMAO

Insightful.

Jenson71
09-10-2008, 07:31 PM
Insightful.

Can you explain this article to me? What are we backwards Christians supposed to be upset about?

And why do you think the Pope has nothing better to do than sit around and argue with science blogs on the internet?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-10-2008, 07:32 PM
He was Hitler Youth anyway...








:evil:

wazu
09-10-2008, 07:44 PM
Not sure why any pro-lifer would have a problem with this. This sounds more like something liberals would object to. Just imagine the carbon footprint of all those new man-made life forms!

bigfoot
09-10-2008, 07:52 PM
That would have been better. Creationists. Thanks.

Why would it bother creationists. It further substantites that intelligence is involved (in this case bioloigsts in their lab-controlled environment) in the creation of life. The title of the article does say "creation". This could not have happened by chance or accident.

"thinking God's thoughts after Him." Johannes Kepler

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 09:19 PM
Can you explain this article to me? What are we backwards Christians supposed to be upset about?

And why do you think the Pope has nothing better to do than sit around and argue with science blogs on the internet?

First of all, I've said consistently that we'd need more information on this and that it would need to develop. I said that with the word "eventually" and with my subsequent post:

You really think when more info comes out about this that it will only be Islam that erupts?

Second, the pope speaks out on whatever he wants to; the Nazi can speak out against whatever whenever. He's spoken out about stem cell, abortion and creationism. He's spoken out against "new atheism" too. (Whatever that is...)

Third, christians would be upset because it displaces the need for god yet again. Of course, rationalizations will kick in and somehow it will be part of god's grand plan. Mind you, we'd see the outrage in the extremists first. Bill Donahue would implode like he has with Crackergate (you read his latest screed of insanity?). Extremists like those who bomb abortion clinics (luckily none recently, that I've read about) will be the first to come out. Expect phelps to be there. As it gains more and more traction in the media, moderates will start to divide. Just like stem cell research and just like abortion.

They don't call them cafeteria catholics for nothing.

Why would it bother creationists. It further substantites that intelligence is involved (in this case bioloigsts in their lab-controlled environment) in the creation of life. The title of the article does say "creation". This could not have happened by chance or accident.

"thinking God's thoughts after Him." Johannes Kepler

The biologists are god?

ROFL

STOP THE PRESSES, SCIENCE JUST WON!

Jenson71
09-10-2008, 09:51 PM
First of all, I've said consistently that we'd need more information on this and that it would need to develop. I said that with the word "eventually" and with my subsequent post:

Again, I do not understand. Is the creation of simple cell models supposed to anger us? Or that the models can react to chemicals? Does this show there is no need for God?

Second, the pope speaks out on whatever he wants to; the Nazi can speak out against whatever whenever. He's spoken out about stem cell, abortion and creationism. He's spoken out against "new atheism" too. (Whatever that is...)

So because Pope Benedict has spoken about stem cell research, abortion, and creationism, you expect the pope to eventually release a statement on this experiement? I would like to point out that Pope Benedict has only spoken against embroyonic stem cell research, and he seemed to support adult stem cell research.

Bill Donahue would implode like he has with "The Man"gate (you read his latest screed of insanity?).

No I missed it. What is it?

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 10:01 PM
Again, I do not understand. Is the creation of simple cell models supposed to anger us? Or that the models can react to chemicals? Does this show there is no need for God?

Life does not include single celled organisms?

So because Pope Benedict has spoken about stem cell research, abortion, and creationism, you expect the pope to eventually release a statement on this experiement? I would like to point out that Pope Benedict has only spoken against embroyonic stem cell research, and he seemed to support adult stem cell research.

You don't expect him to issue a report when more information and experimentation is done along this path? You don't think that the creation of life from something that wasn't alive won't warrant a response from the highest ranking religious leader?



No I missed it. What is it?
Here:
MILITANT ATHEISM UNLEASHED

When I spoke to a reporter from Providence about a play that mocked the Eucharist, I unloaded. Fortunately, he listened to me explain the source of my anger. “Because this is the fourth incident this summer of someone playing fast and loose with the Eucharist,” I told him. He understood.

The first incident occurred when Washington Post religion editor Sally Quinn decided she would show how much she cared about the late Tim Russert by doing something she hated to do—receive Communion; Quinn is not Catholic. The second incident was worse: a brazen student from the University of Central Florida walked out of Mass with the Eucharist to protest some innocuous school policy. The third was obscene: University of Minnesota Professor Paul Z. Myers desecrated a consecrated Host to protest my criticism of the Florida student. So when the reporter called to ask why I was unhappy with some woman who decided to mock the Eucharist in a play, he touched a raw nerve.
For fifteen years I have been president of the Catholic League, and never have I seen such a series of assaults on the Eucharist. What’s going on? And what accounts for the total failure of the University of Minnesota to hold Myers accountable?

What’s going on is that militant atheism is all the rage. Books by Richard Dawkins (a personal friend of Myers who lies about me the same way Myers does), Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens have all sold well, and what they are selling is hate. Hatred of religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The bulls-eye, of course, is Roman Catholicism. I’ll give them this much: At least the religion bashers are smart enough to know who’s on top.

What these authors do is embolden their base. To be specific, they energize atheists to be more in-your-face about their convictions, the result of which is an agenda to attack Catholicism. And what better way to do so than by trashing the Eucharist? This may not explain what Quinn did, or for that matter what the Florida student and the playwright did, but it sure explains Paul Z. Myers’ boldness.

The sick climate that these zealots have created could not have succeeded without a little help from their friends. In the case of Myers, that means the administrators at the University. They had several options available to them, and they passed on every one of them. Predictably, they hid behind academic freedom, claiming they were impotent to do anything about Myers’ off-campus behavior.

This is utter nonsense, and I will prove it right now: Does anyone believe that the University of Minnesota would do absolutely nothing about a white professor who packed them in at a local comedy club on weekends doing his racist rendition of “Little Black Sambo”? Would the very same administrators plead helplessness about a professor who spoke to community groups off-campus about the mythology of the Holocaust?

Lest anyone not be convinced, need I remind you that Larry Summers was driven out of his job as president of Harvard University for remarks that radical feminists found objectionable. It cannot go unsaid that Summers’ comments were made off-campus. Moreover, when Summers spoke, it was made explicitly clear that he was not speaking as president, but as an academic. But that didn’t matter to the ever-tolerant ones on the faculty—he offended them because he disagreed with them, and that was enough to get him kicked out.

Academic freedom was instituted to protect contrarian professors from being hounded out of the academy for challenging the conventional wisdom on a particular academic subject. It was not instituted to protect hate speech. Myers is free to say whatever he wants about his specialty, which is zebrafish, but he has no moral right to assault the sensibilities of any religious group. So what should the administrators have done?

At the very least, the president should have convened an assembly, with members of the press invited, to unequivocally condemn what Myers did. Even if what Myers did was outside the purview of the president’s authority, there was nothing stopping him from holding such a forum. And there was certainly nothing stopping the chancellor of the Morris campus from doing the same. She was actually worse—she tried to play both sides of the street.

As I said to Ray Arroyo, this may not be over yet. Over the summer, Myers’ personnel file ballooned: everything that happened regarding this issue is in it. Which means that he’d better be careful about bringing his religious bigotry to bear in the classroom. If just one Catholic student complains that he is being treated unfairly because of his religion, Myers will have to answer.

Because of the hate-filled milieu that Myers and his ilk have created, all kinds of copy-cats have come forth. Some have put videos of themselves up on the Internet. They all go after me big time, and that is as it should be. They know who the enemy is, and for that I am eternally grateful.

Jenson71
09-10-2008, 10:33 PM
Life does not include single celled organisms?

Yes, it does.

I'm not a biologist. I haven't even taken a college level course on biology, and I don't really want to. I can't debate this stuff to much of an extent and I don't think you can either. All I know is that the Catholic Church is not against science and research. The Catholic Church is not against reason and understanding of our natural history and natural makeup. Do not make them out to be. In your crusades, go to the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, founded by Pope Martin V, and tell them about this experiment. Then ask them what it means and report back to me.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 10:51 PM
Yes, it does.

I'm not a biologist. I haven't even taken a college level course on biology, and I don't really want to. I can't debate this stuff to much of an extent and I don't think you can either. All I know is that the Catholic Church is not against science and research. The Catholic Church is not against reason and understanding of our natural history and natural makeup. Do not make them out to be. In your crusades, go to the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, founded by Pope Martin V, and tell them about this experiment. Then ask them what it means and report back to me.

My argument is much more basic. Of course, to make things more complicated is par the course with you as many things have indicated.

My argument is simple: if science can create life out of the non-living, it makes god superfluous. It's yet another way where what the SUPERnatural explained, the NATURAL can explain. Another gap closed in the god of the gaps.

Why no interest in biology? I contend that would be your biggest obstacle to maintaining your beliefs. (If you were to delve into that area.)

Having said that, I took chemistry instead of biology, something I regret.

Mr Luzcious
09-10-2008, 10:58 PM
My argument is much more basic. Of course, to make things more complicated is par the course with you as many things have indicated.

My argument is simple: if science can create life out of the non-living, it makes god superfluous. It's yet another way where what the SUPERnatural explained, the NATURAL can explain. Another gap closed in the god of the gaps.

Why no interest in biology? I contend that would be your biggest obstacle to maintaining your beliefs. (If you were to delve into that area.)

Having said that, I took chemistry instead of biology, something I regret.

I took both. I found chemistry much more interesting, however.

This development hardly makes God superfluous (superfulous, is how it should by spelled/pronounced, but thats another story) when you believe that we have souls.

Jenson71
09-10-2008, 10:59 PM
Why no interest in biology? I contend that would be your biggest obstacle to maintaining your beliefs. (If you were to delve into that area.)

Why would biology be an obstacle in my faith? I was taught biology at my Catholic high school. I took a Human Origins class in college, which had some biology, but I mostly saw it as a history class.

And here is a link for an event coming up at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences later this fall: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/Booklet_38.pdf

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:05 PM
I took both. I found chemistry much more interesting, however.

This development hardly makes God superfluous (superfulous, is how it should by spelled/pronounced, but thats another story) when you believe that we have souls.

Yes, it does. It negates the entire creationism story and argument: life cannot come from non-life.

And what exactly is your definition of a soul? Consciousness?

Why would biology be an obstacle in my faith? I was taught biology at my Catholic high school. I took a Human Origins class in college, which had some biology, but I mostly saw it as a history class.

And here is a link for an event coming up at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences later this fall: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/Booklet_38.pdf


Most scientists, the further they get into it, tend to steer away from religious belief. It's just a trend and it's backed up by numbers.

Again I have a question: How come you are so obsessed with always trotting out Dawkins and the like when addressing my claims (and the implications you bring therein) when all you do is keep quoting the institution of your religion?

Jenson71
09-10-2008, 11:22 PM
Most scientists, the further they get into it, tend to steer away from religious belief. It's just a trend and it's backed up by numbers.

Is that true? You must be talking political scientists. It's easy to lose sight of God when you study political science.

Again I have a question: How come you are so obsessed with always trotting out Dawkins and the like when addressing my claims (and the implications you bring therein) when all you do is keep quoting the institution of your religion?

Because you insist that Catholic faith is incompatible with scientific reasoning and should be exterminated, and that is simply not true. I have to trot out Dawkins because that is literally the only origin of your ideas. Okay, and wikipedia. You're just not as intelligent as you think you are, and for all the belittling you do to others around here, and your simple-minded view on Catholicism, I don't mind pointing this out.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:37 PM
Is that true? You must be talking political scientists. It's easy to lose sight of God when you study political science.



Because you insist that Catholic faith is incompatible with scientific reasoning and should be exterminated, and that is simply not true. I have to trot out Dawkins because that is literally the only origin of your ideas. Okay, and wikipedia. You're just not as intelligent as you think you are, and for all the belittling you do to others around here, and your simple-minded view on Catholicism, I don't mind pointing this out.

I have not said catholic faith is incompatible with scientific reasoning except for the existence of said god. A dumbass can see that the Bible could easily incorporate evolution as the method god used.

However, that opens up a slew of questions about the Bible and ultimately the religion itself.

Dawkins is not the only source of my beliefs. I came to believe them well before I had even heard or read Dawkins. However, using arguments he makes doesn't make the arguments any less true. I will willfully concede that I know less than Professor Dawkins. Make no mistake about that.

It seems that you aren't as intelligent as you think you are. Otherwise, you'd see the persuasiveness of the arguments provided rather than say "DAWKINS SAID THAT SO ITS JUVENILE TO QUOTE!!!!"

And again, you don't notice or address the irony in calling me out for quoting Dawkins while simultaneously quoting the very institution your defending. It's like using the Bible to prove the Bible.

Jenson71
09-10-2008, 11:47 PM
It seems that you aren't as intelligent as you think you are. Otherwise, you'd see the persuasiveness of the arguments provided rather than say "DAWKINS SAID THAT SO ITS JUVENILE TO QUOTE!!!!"

You know that I have very rarely not answered your questions and challenges to a fairly thorough degree.

And again, you don't notice or address the irony in calling me out for quoting Dawkins while simultaneously quoting the very institution your defending. It's like using the Bible to prove the Bible.

I do see the irony in the freethinker circles reading one book and having all the answers, which from you are usually not answers but attacks.

As for me, I see in this "institution" a body of philosophy and theology that goes back 2000 years and has addressed or met these same challenges we are debating still today. You know I have used Greek philosophy in our debates and they are certainly not part of the "institution" unless you mean the "institution" of Western Civilization, which yes, I EMPHATICALLY do go back to.

irishjayhawk
09-10-2008, 11:54 PM
You know that I have very rarely not answered your questions and challenges to a fairly thorough degree.

I do see the irony in the freethinker circles reading one book and having all the answers, which from you are usually not answers but attacks.

See, that's what I'm talking about. You see this "holier than thou" attitude in me but fail to recognize your own.


As for me, I see in this "institution" a body of philosophy and theology that goes back 2000 years and has addressed or met these same challenges we are debating still today. You know I have used Greek philosophy in our debates and they are certainly not part of the "institution" unless you mean the "institution" of Western Civilization, which yes, I EMPHATICALLY do go back to.

Right, except that doesn't explain many things. And "theology" is hardly a subject. It's like if I termed a subject leprechaunology and decided to make up shit defending leprechauns.

Jenson71
09-11-2008, 12:04 AM
See, that's what I'm talking about. You see this "holier than thou" attitude in me but fail to recognize your own.

I think that if you honestly evaluated yourself, you would recognize that you thrive on putting others down, because it is easy for you here and you can repeat good arguments. I think I have always tried to maintain respect towards those who do not share my beliefs, with the exception of Programmer.

Right, except that doesn't explain many things. And "theology" is hardly a subject. It's like if I termed a subject leprechaunology and decided to make up shit defending leprechauns.

Discussing God and the nature of God, including existence, is by definition, theology. Theology does not have much explanation for natural sciences, if that is what you are looking for. If we were discussing leprechauns, it would be appropriate to debate various aspects of leprechaunology.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 12:09 AM
I think that if you honestly evaluated yourself, you would recognize that you thrive on putting others down, because it is easy for you here and you can repeat good arguments. I think I have always tried to maintain respect towards those who do not share my beliefs, with the exception of Programmer.

There are plenty I respect. In your case, I don't respect you because you don't respect me. :shrug:

I do not, however, respect the belief. The belief is a delusion.

And after all that Dawkins dismissing and putting down that you like to call me out for, you then concede the arguments are good. And I wonder why they're repeated...



Discussing God and the nature of God, including existence, is by definition, theology. Theology does not have much explanation for natural sciences, if that is what you are looking for. If we were discussing leprechauns, it would be appropriate to debate various aspects of leprechaunology.

EXACTLY! Theology is a subject made up to defend a made up concept/being.

It's like me saying there's a Potterology because I'm arguing about the existence of muggles, platform 9 and 3/4 etc.

It's not a subject in the same way that, say, mathematics or science are subjects.

Jenson71
09-11-2008, 12:24 AM
There are plenty I respect. In your case, I don't respect you because you don't respect me. :shrug:

I do not, however, respect the belief. The belief is a delusion.

And after all that Dawkins dismissing and putting down that you like to call me out for, you then concede the arguments are good. And I wonder why they're repeated...

You go out of your way to ask people here questions about their faith that you already more than likely know the answers to and sometimes even state for them. You did this in a debate with me previously. It's comforting to feel superior, isn't it? But let's not get into any false pretenses that you're just an innocent observer.

Dawkins does have some good arguments. In three pages for each topic as he does in his book, he can succintly set up an idea and tear it down. He has good command of the language. Especially the chapter titled "Why There is Almost Certainly No God" 'Almost Certainly'


EXACTLY! Theology is a subject made up to defend a made up concept/being.

It's like me saying there's a Potterology because I'm arguing about the existence of muggles, platform 9 and 3/4 etc.

It's not a subject in the same way that, say, mathematics or science are subjects.

It's the study of religion and religious thought, a deeply important topic in mankind that has been with us for a good while. It's not a subject in the same way that math or natural science is -- it's a hell of a lot more fun, for sure, though.

Jenson71
09-11-2008, 12:31 AM
Also, I do respect you, irish. I just do not respect your arrogance and ignorance when it comes to religion. Like Richard Dawkins. I have a very high regard of religion, and especially Catholicism.

irishjayhawk
09-11-2008, 11:59 AM
You go out of your way to ask people here questions about their faith that you already more than likely know the answers to and sometimes even state for them. You did this in a debate with me previously. It's comforting to feel superior, isn't it? But let's not get into any false pretenses that you're just an innocent observer.

I was unaware that raising questions to new (or old) believers is out of bounds.

Do I think I am a superior person? Absolutely not. I have too many problems as it is.
Do I think my position is superior? Absolutely. No doubt in my mind.


Dawkins does have some good arguments. In three pages for each topic as he does in his book, he can succintly set up an idea and tear it down. He has good command of the language. Especially the chapter titled "Why There is Almost Certainly No God" 'Almost Certainly'

And I have mimicked that sentiment here because it's essentially what I came to discover pre-Dawkins.


It's the study of religion and religious thought, a deeply important topic in mankind that has been with us for a good while. It's not a subject in the same way that math or natural science is -- it's a hell of a lot more fun, for sure, though.

If it was merely that, a study of religion and religious thought through history, I would classify it as a subject. Unfortunately, you invoke it in a different light. You invoke it as the rationalization for such beliefs. You invoke it as a basis for your beliefs. And that's why my leprechaun and Potter analogies work.

A question that might sum up this distinction: Why is the Bible one of the few literary books with it's own subject? Would we have a Keroacology?

The fact that it's viewed as more than literature and has it's own subject is the very reason it is hard to take it seriously as a subject. Because we could do that with anything.



Also, I do respect you, irish. I just do not respect your arrogance and ignorance when it comes to religion. Like Richard Dawkins. I have a very high regard of religion, and especially Catholicism.

Have you not heard me? I have all the time classified it as beautiful and genius. It is. Pure genius.

And it's hard to see respect through all the "your too young, Dawkins, wikipedia" bullshit you sling. Which is why I tend to come off as more ferocious to you.

Thig Lyfe
09-11-2008, 12:57 PM
"You are playing God!"

"SOMEBODY HAS TO!!!"

http://www.maxim-magazine.co.uk/images/library_UK_13/the_man_with_two_brains_6546_8.jpg

bigfoot
09-11-2008, 08:45 PM
[QUOTE=irishjayhawk;5003799]

My argument is simple: if science can create life out of the non-living, it makes god superfluous. It's yet another way where what the SUPERnatural explained, the NATURAL can explain. Another gap closed in the god of the gaps.QUOTE]


You are kidding right? It took intellegence (man's), not chance, to create this fake cell. This venture is so complicated that It took man/science thousands of years to attain to the knowledge and technology to even attempt something like this. But you contend this venture proves that life as we know it appeared by mere random chance and accident.
Sorry but it supports intelligent design.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

"simple cell models that can almost be called life." (almost)

"but isn't anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe." (but, but, might, could)

"so it's not quite artificial life yet" (not quite)

"What we can do now is copy a limited set of simple [genetic] sequences," (copy,limited)

"Once we can get a replicating environment, we're hoping to experimentally determine what can evolve under those conditions," (hoping)

"His hope is that he'll have a complete self-replicating system in his lab in the near future,"
(hope)

Modern life is far more complex than the simple systems that Szostak and others are working on, so the protocells don't look anything like the cells that we have in our bodies or Venter's genetically-modified E. coli.

Modern cells accomplish this feat with an immense amount of molecular machinery. In fact, some of the chemical syntheses that simple plants and algae can accomplish far outstrip human technologies. Even the most primitive forms of life possess protein machines that allow them to import nutrients across their complex cell membranes and build the molecules that then carry out the cell's bidding.

and so on................can we say intelligent design.

irishjayhawk
09-12-2008, 01:28 AM
[QUOTE=irishjayhawk;5003799]

My argument is simple: if science can create life out of the non-living, it makes god superfluous. It's yet another way where what the SUPERnatural explained, the NATURAL can explain. Another gap closed in the god of the gaps.QUOTE]


You are kidding right? It took intellegence (man's), not chance, to create this fake cell. This venture is so complicated that It took man/science thousands of years to attain to the knowledge and technology to even attempt something like this. But you contend this venture proves that life as we know it appeared by mere random chance and accident.
Sorry but it supports intelligent design.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

"simple cell models that can almost be called life." (almost)

"but isn't anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe." (but, but, might, could)

"so it's not quite artificial life yet" (not quite)

"What we can do now is copy a limited set of simple [genetic] sequences," (copy,limited)

"Once we can get a replicating environment, we're hoping to experimentally determine what can evolve under those conditions," (hoping)

"His hope is that he'll have a complete self-replicating system in his lab in the near future,"
(hope)

Modern life is far more complex than the simple systems that Szostak and others are working on, so the protocells don't look anything like the cells that we have in our bodies or Venter's genetically-modified E. coli.

Modern cells accomplish this feat with an immense amount of molecular machinery. In fact, some of the chemical syntheses that simple plants and algae can accomplish far outstrip human technologies. Even the most primitive forms of life possess protein machines that allow them to import nutrients across their complex cell membranes and build the molecules that then carry out the cell's bidding.

and so on................can we say intelligent design.


ONCE AGAIN! STOP THE PRESSES, SCIENCE HAS WON!!!!!

SCIENCE IS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN. HUMANS ARE THE DESIGNERS! IT WASN'T SUPERNATURAL POWERS, IT WAS HUMANS!!!!


What other reaction can I give to that post? I could laugh a bunch.
ROFLROFL

I could cry because it's so stupid I actually lost brain cells.
:deevee::deevee:
I could shrug it off.
:shrug::shrug:

I could ask for whatever you're smoking.
:bong::bong:

I could say:

:lame:

I could say:
:stupid:

I could call:
:BS:

Wake me when it's over:
:ZZZ:

I could vomit for the sheer amount of stupid radiating my brain.
:Lin::Lin:

I could look in utter astonishment and confusion:
:spock:

I could roll it off:
:rolleyes:

I could look shocked:
:eek:

I could say what should have been said long ago:
STFUSTFUSTFU

bigfoot
09-12-2008, 01:39 PM
Wow! I'm stumped.