Creationism vs. Evolution

and cue science.... http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html

we CAN and do create amino acids from simple elements

and more... http://www.impactlab.net/2010/05/21/artificial-life-created-in-a-laboratory-for-the-first-time/ and another resource of the same event http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece

 

LOL I was waiting for this. I had a dicussion about this a couple months ago and did some searching for answers an found a suitable explaination that does nothing to waiver my faith..

“This paper is an important advance. I don’t think it’s really a major breakthrough like some have claimed. What it is not is the creation of synthetic life. ... What it is is for the first time a bacterial cell has been made which is controlled entirely by DNA that has been made in a test tube.” - Nobel Laureate Sir Paul Nurse, Ph.D




"Richard Dawkins pushes the idea of a blind watchman assembling a sophisticated watch. I would like now to step it up a bit. Craig Venter proved that a synthetic polymer DNA and a naturally created polymer are exactly the same and function the same way, just like artificially assembled ascorbic acid has exactly the same functions as vitamin C found in oranges.
So far we have been passing the ball around the hoop now the slam dunk is what is left to do. The question is this if instead of a partially assembled bacterium, what Craig did was to produce an artificially assembled DNA Polymer and remove the natural polymer while the Bacterium was still alive and before it died he inserted his polymer. Did he create life? No the bacterium did not die before he inserted his synthetic DNA! Had it died before he performed his operation then we would be saying indeed he created life.
So the bacterium was not entirely synthetic it was part synthetic (Chromosome) and part natural (the rest of the bacterial body).
Now the question is this, now that we have a new bacterium from a synthetic chromosome DNA polymer, we know all about this bacteria chemically. That means we have enough information to synthetically produce parts of the bacterium individually and assemble this bacterium from scratch, if we were to put it together will it begin to function and reproduce and show since of life? For so long we have been dancing around this question. Remember you are not supposed to use an already living bacterium or any natural produced parts it must be entirely synthetic!
If Richard Dawkins can prove that artificial life is possible by this experiment I will worship the scientist who did this. Life cannot be created scientifically. In life I mean the phenomenon that leaves the living cell when it dies and cannot be detected by any scientific instrument. Life can only come from God and unless he gives it you can assemble a bacterium through artificial means without the interference of living cells and this watch will not work just like a digital watch will not work without the charged battery. The energy in a battery is what LIFE is in bio systems.
Life cannot be created in a lab!"

Ventner didn't create the actual cell...from scratch..
(fingers in ears) "Lalalalalalalalalalala"

Actually this STRENGTHENS the argument for intellegent design becasue it took a MIND to even create this fabrication!!! Now create life in the exact NATURAL ocurring conditions Scientists claim to have existed "billions of years ago" Surely that has been tried...even the big bang theory assumes something from nothing. Every action has an opposite and all that.

 

I'm not positive of the source or the date but, I believe, if you do a little searching, you will find that the "Inventor" of Evolution accepted Christ as his savior while he was in the hospital before he died. He then stated that the "Theory" of Evolution was nothing more than a theory. I will try to find the actual source of this and post it.

 

Coccyx.

 

Not arguing, but I think you'll find most of the debators will openly acknowledge evolution as theory. However, it's well backed up with observations.

Whereas, faith-based beliefs tend to have very sketchy evidence at best - you can't say "the soul weight X grams," you can't show me an angel whenever you want to (way off topic, but I'm pretty sure I've seen one), where's the proof for the "6-days to create everything" ideas? IIRC, back in the 1700/1800s, people figured that the earth started roughly 9000 years ago, based on adding up the folks in the bible that had the geneologies listed. Obviously that contradicts the scientific dating methods (whether you believe in them or not isn't my point, just the conflict in start points)

Now certainly, many things in the bible ARE based on history - but so is any decent "historical fiction" movie or book. Again, most scientists/evolution believers won't dispute this.

Love to see your source when you find it.

 

Good points. This is another old one by creationists. Essentially it is simply an ad hominem attack. Rather than debate the theory of evolution on its merits, they talk about Darwin personally and trot out different variations of the 'deathbed recantation.'

The real problem is for the biblical literalists who insist the Bible is the inspired word of god, unchanged by man. They are stuck with a hopelessly inept and contradictory document that compresses billions of years into 6 days and 6000 years and claims a completely separate origin for man, distinct from the animals.

They do this despite literally tons of evidence because their superstition trumps science. Their more sophisticated brethren allow for some interpretation of scripture, but they lose their way because they allow for the dilution of the authority of scripture as having been contaminated by man.

Finally, most of the adherents do not even know their own bible and church history and the history of the canon as well as many atheists.

That is because they take their bible and belief systems with the same lack of intellectual rigor that they apply to their natural surroundings.

 

Hey Mark, Was not trying to prove with the scripture, just sharing something I find interesting. My point to Andrew was that to use the term antichrist or anti Christ one must allow for the existence of Christ, otherwise what is he anti ? If he is oppositional, against, or the enemy of Christ this would be appropriate. If denying the existence of Christ I think he should use other terminology to clarify. (my opinion) Thanks for comments

 

Who made GOD?

 

Yup. Ain't no Christ. Ain't no antichrist. It's all superstition. Fiction.
Reminds me of my son when he was five years old and asked if Superman and Green Lantern got in a fight, who would win?

Whatever the script says. Can't answer such questions when they are based on fictional characters.

 

This question shows the silliness of the prime mover argument for the existence of 'god.' If the universe required a prime mover, who created the prime mover?

By labeling the universe 'god' the argument gains no traction. If 'god' could always have been, with no beginning and no end, why couldn't the universe have always been? Hence, adding 'god' as a prime mover adds nothing to the argument.

 

I think we can all rest assured that we will not find alien life any time soon and not because it does not exist but because if it is found then it will be a closely guarded secret. Yes, scientificly curious folks would give their left .... to learn of other living things but there are also 4 other variables in play that will make that discovery very difficult.

For starters I can assure you that religious groups (specifically those who are profitting billions from its member base) already have a well established "first contact" response unit in which a cover story is used, potential proof of intelligent life (ie a visitor) eliminated or some other way to sweep it under the carpet will be used. Needless to say it will be in their highest interest to hold on to their wealth (financial, power, member based) until a whole armada of aliens shows up and there is no way to prevent them from landing.

Consequently if it has not already occured, first world nations would keep it a well guarded secret to benefit from technology. Let's say hypothetically that alient ship landed here... just shere fact that it made it here would imply that our visitor would have come from a technologically more advanced than us planet or galaxy. There are billions in potential profits at stake as well as military superiority over other nations which is well worth the trouble of trying to cover up such discovery.

Another possibility is that we were not deemed worthy enough by other life forms to be "enlightened" partly because of our closed mindedness as well as constant quest for power over others. A race that is more advanced would obviously not want to share and unless they need our planet for something else like slave labor or resources... for all we know they are hovering above the planet looking at us through a microscope trying to figure out what to make of us.

Lastly even if alien life is found I am sure that religious folks would come up with a way to take passages out of sacred book(s) and somehow justify their existence through established belief system.... and people would listen and not question because that is exactly what religious folks have done for centuries... rely on a book that has been edited and re-edited and re-edited and re-edited. So in the end... we will be back to square one in a manner of speaking.

 

what gets me is that one main reason Americans won't accept AGW science is that they have to come off the creation trip. if that isn't enough of a problem for ya, you've got people who accept evolution based on empirical evidence but deny AGW that has just as much empirical evidence.

so while everyone wants it both ways (as in, burn fossil fuel but deny the true age of the earth or accept forms of proven science they like, but deny man's climate forcing) we are pretty much fucked.

it's all good though. maybe next time around primates will evolve a little better

 

Very good answer but my question was based more at simple life. Not exactly intelligent life. While I don't doubt there is a possibility that there is intelligent life out there I was looking at just a discovery of basic life. Microorganisms or bacteria or something along those lines. Basically if life has formed off this planet that could show that it could happen anywhere as long as the enviroment was right.

 

Why would finding life on another planet be such a blow to the "religious" communities?

If unintelligent life is found, that just means that the life was created on that planet, or caught ride there from some of our space junk.

I don't see that it necessarily hurts or supports either view.

Obviously if intelligent life(as in equivalent to humans or greater) is found, it would create a bigger problem inside the religious groups seeing as how a majority wants to believe that God only created us.
Thats something they will have to come to terms with internally.

 

Well most creationist feel that life on this planet is special and that God created all life. I am not saying that it is not special but if life, even the most simple life is found on another celestial body, would mean that maybe life is not that uncommon in the the universe. Either God created that life too or it has been created by nature. One of the biggest arguements is "How did life begin?".

Even intelligent life had to start somewhere.

 

The answer to your previous question is pretty obvious to me...if/when we discover intelligent life, creationists will just say 'god' created it. Whenever they come across something that they cannot explain, they simply give the credit to 'god', rather than seeking out the truth.

 

AGW?

I also find it interesting that Pope John Paul 2 even stated that evolution/creatinism can coexist http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

 

AGW is Anthropomorphic Global Warming

 

ah... yes.... actually, I don't know that it's got the same level of evidence. As I understand things, it's almost all based on models. Plus it's easy to say "there's no global warming!" when Chicago just had 20" of snow and sub zero windchills, even as pakistan floods and Europe "burns" at 90 degrees.

Granted, I don't follow it closely. But I also think this shouldn't clutter the current topic, so I'll stop here!