Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

A new creation evidence.

bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:15:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How does this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place, exactly?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 6:24:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:15:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How does this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place, exactly?
Its disppaying that the method of these cells comming into being was through a designer with a purpose and plan in mind and that these simple people even were able to make a functional cell. I dont think the precendence can be stressed enough. If there was another way to get the cells, otherwise why not take a darwinian scientifical approach and throw all tye neccesarry parts in the same general area? Since that magical force will tell them to combine into functionality.
Short answer: strong pararell to our creator creating, creation method was the better scientific approach at making synthetic life.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 7:01:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:24:27 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:15:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How does this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place, exactly?
Its disppaying that the method of these cells comming into being was through a designer with a purpose and plan in mind and that these simple people even were able to make a functional cell. I dont think the precendence can be stressed enough. If there was another way to get the cells, otherwise why not take a darwinian scientifical approach and throw all tye neccesarry parts in the same general area? Since that magical force will tell them to combine into functionality.
Short answer: strong pararell to our creator creating, creation method was the better scientific approach at making synthetic life.

I still don't see how you're getting to that conclusion. The point of the study was to work towards a minimal genome. The hypothesis is that the other way (i.e. abiogenesis) takes millions of years. Of course they're going to go at it from the direction in the study if they want to get there quickly.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 8:29:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 7:01:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:24:27 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:15:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How does this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place, exactly?
Its disppaying that the method of these cells comming into being was through a designer with a purpose and plan in mind and that these simple people even were able to make a functional cell. I dont think the precendence can be stressed enough. If there was another way to get the cells, otherwise why not take a darwinian scientifical approach and throw all tye neccesarry parts in the same general area? Since that magical force will tell them to combine into functionality.
Short answer: strong pararell to our creator creating, creation method was the better scientific approach at making synthetic life.

I still don't see how you're getting to that conclusion. The point of the study was to work towards a minimal genome. The hypothesis is that the other way (i.e. abiogenesis) takes millions of years. Of course they're going to go at it from the direction in the study if they want to get there quickly.

I certainly see what you mean and your apprehension towards drawing that conclusion however as far as bacterium, viruses ect. They can "evolve" in days or faster. You dont need to wait even a year to see whats going to occur. Point being here is that how darwin proposed an abstract way that things could simply improve themselves over millions of years so they dont need a separate force to individually create everything (not sure why it has to be millions, what about punctual equilibrium for the sake of discussion) this is a clear example of how natural selection is not needed at all, just an intelligeble force is needed to bring life into being and that there are more than grounds that everything could be created how it needs to be and left to natural selection to sort out the environmental variences within any lifeforms group.
You dont have to agree with it, I doubt you may but you cant deny its pretty compelling progress in the lab!!!!
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:21:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:24:27 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:15:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How does this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place, exactly?
Its disppaying that the method of these cells comming into being was through a designer with a purpose and plan in mind and that these simple people even were able to make a functional cell. I dont think the precendence can be stressed enough. If there was another way to get the cells, otherwise why not take a darwinian scientifical approach and throw all tye neccesarry parts in the same general area? Since that magical force will tell them to combine into functionality.
Short answer: strong pararell to our creator creating, creation method was the better scientific approach at making synthetic life.

If you want to read some big picture message into this experiment, then you could just as easily point out that the experiment used trial and error to find out which genes were essential. So any "design" in this experiment is arrived at through a trial and error process where essential genes are retained and non-essential genes are discarded. Sounds a lot like evolution.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 9:36:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 9:21:56 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:24:27 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:15:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How does this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place, exactly?
Its disppaying that the method of these cells comming into being was through a designer with a purpose and plan in mind and that these simple people even were able to make a functional cell. I dont think the precendence can be stressed enough. If there was another way to get the cells, otherwise why not take a darwinian scientifical approach and throw all tye neccesarry parts in the same general area? Since that magical force will tell them to combine into functionality.
Short answer: strong pararell to our creator creating, creation method was the better scientific approach at making synthetic life.

If you want to read some big picture message into this experiment, then you could just as easily point out that the experiment used trial and error to find out which genes were essential. So any "design" in this experiment is arrived at through a trial and error process where essential genes are retained and non-essential genes are discarded. Sounds a lot like evolution.
One could paint it that way and thats fair but the way I see it, an intelligent mind is intervening to create and mold the cell to be what they want it to be, just in the same way genesis tells us everything was formed into being. Guess its just a matter of agreeing to disagree.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:05:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

I was just wondering about designing organisms and how the lack of controls could do some significant damage to life on earth should it go wrong.

In fact I just saw a headline about a bacteria that was discovered that eats plastic. It obviously had to evolve that capability relatively recently as plastics are relatively new. Living organisms change over generations. It is a bit scary thinking about how things could go wrong.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2016 10:39:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 10:05:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

I was just wondering about designing organisms and how the lack of controls could do some significant damage to life on earth should it go wrong.

In fact I just saw a headline about a bacteria that was discovered that eats plastic. It obviously had to evolve that capability relatively recently as plastics are relatively new. Living organisms change over generations. It is a bit scary thinking about how things could go wrong.
Thats crazy and very interesting! We do know bacterium are very flexible but when they do change their genetic makeup they lose information in doing so. woukdnt surprise me if this plastic eating bacteria was derrived from a lab. I fear we are going to destroy it all someday.
distraff
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 1:40:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How is this evidence for creation? I don't get it.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 1:57:49 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 1:40:38 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How is this evidence for creation? I don't get it.
Well as I have explained numerous times now we simply dont need to posit some magical evolutionary force to get life anymore. This demonstrates life can be created through design.
distraff
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 2:40:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 1:57:49 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:40:38 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How is this evidence for creation? I don't get it.
Well as I have explained numerous times now we simply dont need to posit some magical evolutionary force to get life anymore. This demonstrates life can be created through design.

Well, you will be glad to hear that is impossible for evolution to create life, and this is coming from an evolutionist. This is because evolution is about evolving life through natural selection and mutations. Obviously such a process can only evolve life and not create it.

Just because scientists can simulate an event in a lab does not mean it actually happened that way. Scientists have also created new elements that can't exist in nature, but that does not mean that they are out there somewhere. We do a lot of stuff nature does in the lab and being able to do something in the lab does not mean that thing was done by an intelligence, and could have a natural process that creates it as well.

To be honest, the origin of life is a mystery. There is some evidence for abiogenesis but there are so many hypotheses of how abiogenesis came about. Scientists have been able to simulate what they think are early earth conditions and find that the building blocks of life do form, and can connect together to form simple RNA and proteins. They can even see amino acids group into proteinoids that can self-replicate.

However there is still a lot of debate over what the early earth conditions actually were, e.g. how much methane, ammonium, CO2, nitrogen, and oxygen were in the atmosphere and what the oceans were like. We have found amino acids in asteroids which indicates that life could have come from outer space or at least some of its building blocks did.

Some theories of abiogenesis are the RNA world hypothesis, Protein world hypothesis, Hot sea vent hypothesis, lightning strike hypothesis, and clay breeding ground hypothesis. Each of these ideas have some evidence to support them but have not been demonstrated to make life yet and have lots of gaps.

There is also the idea that life was created by other life but that idea has no convincing evidence either.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2016 4:15:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 2:40:21 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:57:49 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:40:38 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How is this evidence for creation? I don't get it.
Well as I have explained numerous times now we simply dont need to posit some magical evolutionary force to get life anymore. This demonstrates life can be created through design.

Well, you will be glad to hear that is impossible for evolution to create life, and this is coming from an evolutionist. This is because evolution is about evolving life through natural selection and mutations. Obviously such a process can only evolve life and not create it.
Well yes and no and feel free to correct me on this but evolution is generally and liberally applied to all the fields of science. The idea is that the universe itself evolved and these cosmological evolutions rolled the dice enough times to eventually get life and some order to sustain it. At some point through whatever means life had to begin where one day there wasn't life and next thing you know there's an amoeba.

Just because scientists can simulate an event in a lab does not mean it actually happened that way. Scientists have also created new elements that can't exist in nature, but that does not mean that they are out there somewhere. We do a lot of stuff nature does in the lab and being able to do something in the lab does not mean that thing was done by an intelligence, and could have a natural process that creates it as well.
Well your certainly correct in this however I simply disagree in that it shows life can arise from intelligence. The things we typically do in the lab are through manipulation of natural processes but this example is purely unnatural as evolution for example obviously can't account for synthetic bacterium specially created by us.

To be honest, the origin of life is a mystery. There is some evidence for abiogenesis but there are so many hypotheses of how abiogenesis came about. Scientists have been able to simulate what they think are early earth conditions and find that the building blocks of life do form, and can connect together to form simple RNA and proteins. They can even see amino acids group into proteinoids that can self-replicate.
Yes of course but all this shows is that nature will continue to do its job despite the odds. But I find abiogenesis of itself compelling to show an agent of creation. I don't expect to find agreement there but I think the field of study is very important and interesting.

However there is still a lot of debate over what the early earth conditions actually were, e.g. how much methane, ammonium, CO2, nitrogen, and oxygen were in the atmosphere and what the oceans were like. We have found amino acids in asteroids which indicates that life could have come from outer space or at least some of its building blocks did.

To me and this is strictly an opinion of course, I find that to support the possibility of life carried from elsewhere as a footprint so to speak. Sort of how we find fossils of extinct animals and various creatures in the earth showing us there was this unique creature at some point that's long gone and not observable anymore.
I definitely don't think the universe is going around spontaneously producing ammino acids but just a footprint.
e theories of abiogenesis are the RNA world hypothesis, Protein world hypothesis, Hot sea vent hypothesis, lightning strike hypothesis, and clay breeding ground hypothesis. Each of these ideas have some evidence to support them but have not been demonstrated to make life yet and have lots of gaps.
Well these areas and thoughts have some muriness to overcome but as this article demonstrates, one theory aka creation has been now demonstrated to make life making it uncountably more viable to those on the fence and for me fulfilling something I'd expect to be the case under a creation or design model.
There is also the idea that life was created by other life but that idea has no convincing evidence either.
Well one has to establish at the minimum to themselves, that things were created. Who done it is another can of worms
distraff
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 4:42:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/26/2016 4:15:20 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:40:21 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:57:49 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:40:38 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How is this evidence for creation? I don't get it.
Well as I have explained numerous times now we simply dont need to posit some magical evolutionary force to get life anymore. This demonstrates life can be created through design.

Well, you will be glad to hear that is impossible for evolution to create life, and this is coming from an evolutionist. This is because evolution is about evolving life through natural selection and mutations. Obviously such a process can only evolve life and not create it.
The idea is that the universe itself evolved and these cosmological evolutions rolled the dice enough times to eventually get life and some order to sustain it.

Well there are at least trillions of planets and maybe quite a few universes.

At some point through whatever means life had to begin where one day there wasn't life and next thing you know there's an amoeba.

No, life did not start with an amoeba. If abiogenesis did happen we probably started with something very very simple that was self-replicating.

Just because scientists can simulate an event in a lab does not mean it actually happened that way. Scientists have also created new elements that can't exist in nature, but that does not mean that they are out there somewhere. We do a lot of stuff nature does in the lab and being able to do something in the lab does not mean that thing was done by an intelligence, and could have a natural process that creates it as well.
Well your certainly correct in this however I simply disagree in that it shows life can arise from intelligence. The things we typically do in the lab are through manipulation of natural processes but this example is purely unnatural as evolution for example obviously can't account for synthetic bacterium specially created by us.

Of course evolution can't account for it because this bacteria was the result of us doing genetic engineering and removing genes, and not evolution. We did not actually create anything, we just changed existing life.

To be honest, the origin of life is a mystery. There is some evidence for abiogenesis but there are so many hypotheses of how abiogenesis came about. Scientists have been able to simulate what they think are early earth conditions and find that the building blocks of life do form, and can connect together to form simple RNA and proteins. They can even see amino acids group into proteinoids that can self-replicate.
Yes of course but all this shows is that nature will continue to do its job despite the odds. But I find abiogenesis of itself compelling to show an agent of creation. I don't expect to find agreement there but I think the field of study is very important and interesting.

You can only view abiogenesis as an agent of creation if you already believe in creation. From my perspective science has not shown any proof of a creator.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 12:54:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 4:42:37 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 4:15:20 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 2:40:21 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:57:49 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/26/2016 1:40:38 AM, distraff wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How is this evidence for creation? I don't get it.
Well as I have explained numerous times now we simply dont need to posit some magical evolutionary force to get life anymore. This demonstrates life can be created through design.

Well, you will be glad to hear that is impossible for evolution to create life, and this is coming from an evolutionist. This is because evolution is about evolving life through natural selection and mutations. Obviously such a process can only evolve life and not create it.
The idea is that the universe itself evolved and these cosmological evolutions rolled the dice enough times to eventually get life and some order to sustain it.

Well there are at least trillions of planets and maybe quite a few universes.
I wont try to make much of a point here except that there being trillions of planets and the possibility of trillions of universes doesnt matter. We could have any number of planets or universes but it doesnt tell use how they ended up there. Its like watching a chess game unfold as opposed to seeing a king checkmated by 2 knights in a castled position. We see the position but it tells us very little of the preceding details. Even in this instance one could speculate how we wound up at the position but there isnt anything barring a solution either way.

At some point through whatever means life had to begin where one day there wasn't life and next thing you know there's an amoeba.

No, life did not start with an amoeba. If abiogenesis did happen we probably started with something very very simple that was self-replicating.
Ok let me revise. At some point life had to begin one day where the previous day or even second life was not be that through something very very simple that was self replicating. which as this article demonstrates was probably created.

Just because scientists can simulate an event in a lab does not mean it actually happened that way. Scientists have also created new elements that can't exist in nature, but that does not mean that they are out there somewhere. We do a lot of stuff nature does in the lab and being able to do something in the lab does not mean that thing was done by an intelligence, and could have a natural process that creates it as well.
Well your certainly correct in this however I simply disagree in that it shows life can arise from intelligence. The things we typically do in the lab are through manipulation of natural processes but this example is purely unnatural as evolution for example obviously can't account for synthetic bacterium specially created by us.

Of course evolution can't account for it because this bacteria was the result of us doing genetic engineering and removing genes, and not evolution. We did not actually create anything, we just changed existing life.
We didnt necessarily change existing life, we took existing parts that exist (as the bible suggest God did with this planet, suggesting God formed it not from nothing) and formed life.

To be honest, the origin of life is a mystery. There is some evidence for abiogenesis but there are so many hypotheses of how abiogenesis came about. Scientists have been able to simulate what they think are early earth conditions and find that the building blocks of life do form, and can connect together to form simple RNA and proteins. They can even see amino acids group into proteinoids that can self-replicate.
Yes of course but all this shows is that nature will continue to do its job despite the odds. But I find abiogenesis of itself compelling to show an agent of creation. I don't expect to find agreement there but I think the field of study is very important and interesting.

You can only view abiogenesis as an agent of creation if you already believe in creation. From my perspective science has not shown any proof of a creator.
Fair enough. Good discussion though!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 3:30:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/25/2016 8:29:36 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 7:01:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:24:27 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:15:55 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/25/2016 6:12:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
"Creation of minimal cell with just the genes needed for independent life"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Scientists are renacting the creation story to a small degree in the lab. Things like this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place to get any kind of organization. Why are people pretending theres no studies or experiments on creation when there are things like this going on in the lab?

Also aside from the whole debate thing do you guys think its ethical or smart even to be creating synthetic bacteria cells? Sounds like man dabbling in something he shouldnt.

How does this show that cells need to be created with their coding in place, exactly?
Its disppaying that the method of these cells comming into being was through a designer with a purpose and plan in mind and that these simple people even were able to make a functional cell. I dont think the precendence can be stressed enough. If there was another way to get the cells, otherwise why not take a darwinian scientifical approach and throw all tye neccesarry parts in the same general area? Since that magical force will tell them to combine into functionality.
Short answer: strong pararell to our creator creating, creation method was the better scientific approach at making synthetic life.

I still don't see how you're getting to that conclusion. The point of the study was to work towards a minimal genome. The hypothesis is that the other way (i.e. abiogenesis) takes millions of years. Of course they're going to go at it from the direction in the study if they want to get there quickly.

I certainly see what you mean and your apprehension towards drawing that conclusion however as far as bacterium, viruses ect. They can "evolve" in days or faster. You dont need to wait even a year to see whats going to occur. Point being here is that how darwin proposed an abstract way that things could simply improve themselves over millions of years so they dont need a separate force to individually create everything (not sure why it has to be millions, what about punctual equilibrium for the sake of discussion) this is a clear example of how natural selection is not needed at all, just an intelligeble force is needed to bring life into being and that there are more than grounds that everything could be created how it needs to be and left to natural selection to sort out the environmental variences within any lifeforms group.

Again, you're showing your ignorance, this is not about evolution, the word doesn't even appear in that article.

You dont have to agree with it, I doubt you may but you cant deny its pretty compelling progress in the lab!!!!
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth