America's Daily Planet Newspaper

Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.

Now creationists will denigrate this achievement, likely claiming that a) this shows that intelligence is required to create life and b) that they didn't start from scratch with raw chemicals (which is a reasonable since the process requires transplanting their artificial chromosome into a living bacterial cell) , but this is still an impressive achievement - one which was confidently predicted would never happen.

Where will we be in 100 years? I guess that depends on the future of science education.

A Person wrote:

Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.

Now creationists will denigrate this achievement, likely claiming that a) this shows that intelligence is required to create life and b) that they didn't start from scratch with raw chemicals (which is a reasonable since the process requires transplanting their artificial chromosome into a living bacterial cell) , but this is still an impressive achievement - one which was confidently predicted would never happen.

Where will we be in 100 years? I guess that depends on the future of science education.

When they make life from a rock then that's cause to celebrate. Otherwise, they are still creating life from life.

Bingo.

What kind of rock are they allowed? Do they have to start with granite or can they use elements like carbon, oxygen and hydrogen - you know the ones life is made from? Will you let them make a solution first or do you require a lightening bolt to hit a lump of granite and produce George Bush?

If they do will you promise not to use the "Well that proves you need intelligence to produce life" response.

A Person wrote:Bingo.

What kind of rock are they allowed? Do they have to start with granite or can they use elements like carbon, oxygen and hydrogen - you know the ones life is made from? Will you let them make a solution first or do you require a lightening bolt to hit a lump of granite and produce George Bush?

If they do will you promise not to use the "Well that proves you need intelligence to produce life" response.

I don't have confidence that man can create life from non-life. I certainly don't have confidence that nature can do it. As far as the "Well that proves you need intelligence to produce life" response goes... how would you answer that question?

A Person wrote:Well that proves you need intelligence to produce life.

have you seen some of the idiots having kids?

A Person wrote:Now creationists will denigrate this achievement...

Sure, but that's only natural. They fear what science has to say about the universe around them, and have done so ever since the time of Copernicus. But if they can use the things science provides for their own purposes, they won't shrink from it. I expect that if stem cell research ended up curing Alzheimer's and diabetes, the creationist "pro-life" crowd would flock to get themselves cured. And continue to curse the scientists that provided them with the cure in the first place.

A Person wrote:Now creationists will denigrate this achievement, likely claiming that

Ohhhh, you forgot one: God gave him the body, brain and soul to do so. So from the secular humanist worldview you still have an infinite regress to the first cause. It is my pleasure to introduce you to Jesus Christ:

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Repent, beg God for forgiveness for your sin.

Sterling

Ahh the old infinite regress David Flynnism. Why need there be a first cause? Why does the first cause have to be God? Why is there a special pleading for God to be immune to the First Cause argument?

A Person wrote: Why need there be a first cause? Why does the first cause have to be God? Why is there a special pleading for God to be immune to the First Cause argument?

Why not ask your puppy, from which you get your logic?

The only way to understand logic is to understand the person of God, Jesus Christ in whom all things exist and,.. Beg God for mercy.

sterling

ps:

A Person wrote: God to be immune to the First Cause argument?

The uncaused first cause. There has to be one. Otherwise nothing would be and you have a puppie so God exists.

You're welcome.

PS

1) Why need there be a first cause?
2) Why does the first cause have to be God?
3) Why is there a special pleading for God to be immune to the First Cause argument?

Your answer? "Because"

Sorry Sterling, it's turtles all the way down. If God doesn't have to be caused then nothing else does either.

BTW I don't have a puppie, or even a puppy. I have three cats, they use logic, rocks don't, from this I infer that logic is a construct of animal intelligence. I could be wrong though. I've not seen God use logic, and the Bible certainly doesn't.

A Person wrote:1) Why need there be a first cause?
2) Why does the first cause have to be God?
3) Why is there a special pleading for God to be immune to the First Cause argument?

Your answer? "Because"

Sorry Sterling, it's turtles all the way down. If God doesn't have to be caused then nothing else does either.

BTW I don't have a puppie, or even a puppy. I have three cats, they use logic, rocks don't, from this I infer that logic is a construct of animal intelligence. I could be wrong though. I've not seen God use logic, and the Bible certainly doesn't.

If you study Botany you'll see many plants are extremely logically put together. How might you explain that?

A Person wrote:1) BTW I don't have a puppie, or even a puppy. I have three cats, they use logic, rocks don't, from this I infer that logic is a construct of animal intelligence. I could be wrong though. I've not seen God use logic, and the Bible certainly doesn't.

puppie is a spelling that better relates to the ignominious premise of logic coming from cats. If you get your logic from cats, you will apply the cat's feeding habits to humans that are crippled, mentally incapable, flawed or perhaps just eat your neighbor because you want to. Kind of like the movie that you reacted so strongly to, you remember the one that takes your humanist worldview's roof off.

A Person wrote: I could be wrong though.

According to the Scriptures, the revelation of Jesus Christ,... You are.

A Person wrote:I've not seen God use logic, and the Bible certainly doesn't.

We've been over this before. Re read the posts on logic. and in the meantime, Beg God to forgive your sins, have mercy on your soul and regenerate you by His Grace, the Grace of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Savior.

Sterling

royaldiadem wrote:puppie is a spelling that better relates to the ignominious premise of logic coming from cats. If you get your logic from cats, you will apply the cat's feeding habits to humans that are crippled, mentally incapable, flawed or perhaps just eat your neighbor because you want to. Kind of like the movie that you reacted so strongly to, you remember the one that takes your humanist worldview's roof off.

Now please don't misquote me. I say that cats use logic not that logic comes from them. But since you bring it up let's examine cat 'morality'. Cats eat mice and birds, humans eat cows and chickens. Cats don't eat cats and cats seldom kill other cats. In other words cats, like virtually all animals have a predisposition not to kill members of their own species while treating other species as lunch. What you might expect from an evolved animal in fact.

They didn't need an absolute commandment "Thou shalt not Kill', which immediately has to be qualified as "by kill we mean murder and murder is defined as killing someone the rest of us agree would be wrong to kill. Enemies are all right though, people who worship idols, crooks, adulterers, disobedient sons, oh and animals of course are OK as long has they don't have cloven hoofs or tentacles".

A Person wrote:Now please don't misquote me. I say that cats use logic not that logic comes from them.

Did I misunderstand in another post that you said that logic comes from animals? If so, I'm wrong, If not, you are wrong.

A Person wrote:But since you bring it up let's examine cat 'morality'. Cats eat mice and birds, humans eat cows and chickens. Cats don't eat cats and cats seldom kill other cats. In other words cats, like virtually all animals have a predisposition not to kill members of their own species

Cats regularly kill and eat their kind. and their young. (proof is the avatar for BecauseHeLives )

A Person wrote: while treating other species as lunch. What you might expect from an evolved animal in fact.

They didn't need an absolute commandment "Thou shalt not Kill', which immediately has to be qualified as "by kill we mean murder and murder is defined as killing someone the rest of us agree would be wrong to kill. Enemies are all right though, people who worship idols, crooks, adulterers, disobedient sons, oh and animals of course are OK as long has they don't have cloven hoofs or tentacles".

you are examining cat behavior and projecting it into a solely human and transcendental quality in order to avoid acknowledging God.

Repent!

Sterling

royaldiadem wrote:

A Person wrote:Now please don't misquote me. I say that cats use logic not that logic comes from them.

Did I misunderstand in another post that you said that logic comes from animals? If so, I'm wrong, If not, you are wrong.

I said in this post "Logic is a construct of animal brains and is a method of drawing valid inferences from knowledge." That is not the same thing as "logic comes from cats or puppies". I include humans in the class of animals.

royaldiadem wrote:

A Person wrote:But since you bring it up let's examine cat 'morality'. Cats eat mice and birds, humans eat cows and chickens. Cats don't eat cats and cats seldom kill other cats. In other words cats, like virtually all animals have a predisposition not to kill members of their own species

Cats regularly kill and eat their kind. and their young. (proof is the avatar for BecauseHeLives )

You are correct in that cat mothers (and other animals) will, if stressed, occasionally kill and eat their young. "do not' was too strong, "predisposed not to' was what I was referring to. It's not 'regular' behaviour, rather a survival response. Humans do have vestigial evolutionaey behaviours too.

royaldiadem wrote:you are examining cat behavior and projecting it into a solely human and transcendental quality in order to avoid acknowledging God.
Repent!

I was examining animal behaviour to show that animals (including humans) do not need to be told not to kill their own species unless their survival is at stake. Being social animals a humans survival is more likely as part of a larger social group. Before the advent of refrigerators and preservatives, the best place to store food is in a neighbour's stomach.

A Person wrote:I said in this post "Logic is a construct of animal brains and is a method of drawing valid inferences from knowledge." That is not the same thing as "logic comes from cats or puppies".

Logic is a construct
Logic is a construct of animal brains
meow=unintelligible


If people are animals, that means you cannot condemn Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer

for snacking on them unless you use the logic you are positing, logic is a construct of animal brains. Does logic go away when the brain goes to sleep or to Wal-Mart....................


Nice try. You cannot account for logic without using Jesus Christ!

Sterling

royaldiadem wrote:If people are animals, that means you cannot condemn Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer

Since people are animals it is very easy to condemn Hitler and Dahmer. Their actions are dangerous and harmful to others. At the very least they need to be restrained.

If we are to rely on the Bible for our absolute morality then Hitler cannot be condemned. Luke 19:27

A Person wrote:

royaldiadem wrote:If people are animals, that means you cannot condemn Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer

Since people are animals it is very easy to condemn Hitler and Dahmer. Their actions are dangerous and harmful to others. At the very least they need to be restrained.

If we are to rely on the Bible for our absolute morality then Hitler cannot be condemned. Luke 19:27

Aren't you pushing your values on Dahmer?

BecauseHeLives wrote:Aren't you pushing your values on Dahmer?

Yes. Such a position is a reasonable restriction of his right to liberty because to allow him free reign would impose an unreasonable restriction on other people's right to life and security.

A Person wrote:

BecauseHeLives wrote:Aren't you pushing your values on Dahmer?

Yes. Such a position is a reasonable restriction of his right to liberty because to allow him free reign would impose an unreasonable restriction on other people's right to life and security.

Sort of like when mothers kill their babies when they abort them?