What will you believe if science recreates the beginings of life?

[Diuretic]

But doesn't everything in science begin with an assumption Diuretic?

Assumptions, is where it all starts imo....a scientist presumes something, then goes out to prove it....he/she begins with a hypothesis, no?

care

Care, no kidding, if that's the case then I'm a brillliant scientist! Me, King of the Assumers! Fair dinkum if jumping to conclusions was a sport I'd be World Champ!

But I think it starts, following Aristotle, with observation, formation of hypothesis and then testing the hypothesis. That's all I know without googling like buggery!

 

[Diuretic]

Virus.

Viruses are interesting little buggers aren't they? Life, but a strange form of life.

Good read here:

http://microbiologybytes.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/its-life-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it/

It’s Life, Jim, but not as we know it…

Which could well apply to viruses, my very own favourite organisms - after all, they don’t respire, grow, excrete or any of those other good things that classical organisms supposedly do - but that’s not the point of this piece. Rather, I’d like to speculate on an interesting convergence of articles I’ve seen recently, on (1) extrasolar planets, (2) water on same, and (3) the possibility of novel lifeforms. Some of this is an accident of the irregular timing of receipt of my New Scientist and Nature subscriptions, but serendipity has played a large role in my life and will doubtless continue to do so.

More at link and worth a read.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Just following your reasoning.

too fukin' funny...

 

[Zoom-boing]

It won't affect my beliefs at all. God is what started it all

Can you prove this comment, other than "Trust me" or "Its in the Bible/Koran/Torah"? Can you even begin to test it?

Didn't think so!

Can you prove that He didn't start it all?

 

[Skeptik]

Oh boo fucking hoo.

"What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993)."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

There's no evidence for macro evolution. Or for abiogenesis.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis, at least not yet.

There is more than a century of scientific research to back up the theory of evolution.

How anyone can pretend to refute evolution in an internet forum boggles the mind.

 

[KittenKoder]

Viruses are interesting little buggers aren't they? Life, but a strange form of life.

Good read here:

It’s Life, Jim, but not as we know it… « MicrobiologyBytes



More at link and worth a read.

Viruses have given us a LOT of proof for everything from evolution, much of our studies on the subject came from them because their life cycles are so short a few years to us is a million to them. Also all life is based on viruses, our own cells are viruses in many ways. Some go through evolution steps each generation, like the flu and cold viruses. Perhaps god is just a virus?

 

[PeterS]

Refreshing News: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

They are very close and if they succeed how will that effect your current beliefs?

It won't change beliefs at all. The article is about a natural process recreated by man thus it affirms those who see life as natural and those who see life as created by intelligence.

 

[AllieBaba]

Christianity has believed that intelligent beings can create life? Really?

At one point in the past you would be facing an inquisition over this idea.

Christianity has believed in witches, gobblins and evil supernatural possessions (still does) and more hooey than I can shake a broom at.

You are confusing "Christianity" with certain sects and politicially motivated movements within the church, who were working in conjunction with the legal system and at the behest of the judicial system to eradicate certain problematic populations.

Which is the problem of allowing church and state to mingle, of course. True Christians recognize that and are the most staunch defenders of separation of church and state.

Christians do, however, believe in demons and possession....but it's when the government gets involved that you have penalties put into action. The Salem Witch Trials were a result of the JUDICIAL system condemning women (a whole 13? OH MY GOD) for allegedly religious reasons. And that happened under BRITISH rule.

The INQUISITION was an unholy alliance between the Catholic church and certain governments to establish one state religion.

It's old news, it's more likely to happen with the fanatics who want to abolish all religion and all referrals to religion in public than it is otherwise these days. You nuts are the ones who want to ostracize, punish, and eliminate people based upon their religion. Not us.

 

[AllieBaba]

There is no evidence for abiogenesis, at least not yet.

There is more than a century of scientific research to back up the theory of evolution.

How anyone can pretend to refute evolution in an internet forum boggles the mind.

I'm not refuting evolution. I'm refuting the theory that you can take a one cell animal, and it will evolve into a lizard.

Of course animals evolve. People are taller than they used to be...or at least some of us are. We live longer. That's evolution. Horses have developed into widely divergent breeds..that's evolution.

What I say can't happen, and nobody has every proven differently, is that a man can evolve from an APE, or an ape can evolve from a rodent.

 

[PeterS]

Can you prove that He didn't start it all?

If life can only be the product of intelligence and we are created in gods image then god must be life and therefore have an intelligent creator, correct? So he couldn't have started it all since his weakness of being life means he could not be the beginning since he, like us, is a product of another beings intelligene.

Now the question being begged is whether gods god is life. If so, then gods god would also need a god and therefore also not be the beginning. So who started it all since it wasn't god...nature? And, of course, if nature could create god then why couldn't it create us...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are confusing "Christianity" with certain sects and politicially motivated movements within the church, who were working in conjunction with the legal system and at the behest of the judicial system to eradicate certain problematic populations.

The Holy Roman Empire was hardly a sect.

Which is the problem of allowing church and state to mingle, of course. True Christians recognize that and are the most staunch defenders of separation of church and state.

Christians do, however, believe in demons and possession....but it's when the government gets involved that you have penalties put into action. The Salem Witch Trials were a result of the JUDICIAL system condemning women (a whole 13? OH MY GOD) for allegedly religious reasons. And that happened under BRITISH rule.

The INQUISITION was an unholy alliance between the Catholic church and certain governments to establish one state religion.

It's old news, it's more likely to happen with the fanatics who want to abolish all religion and all referrals to religion in public than it is otherwise these days. You nuts are the ones who want to ostracize, punish, and eliminate people based upon their religion. Not us.

what an excuse. jesus charsite!

 

[Zoom-boing]

If life can only be the product of intelligence and we are created in gods image then god must be life and therefore have an intelligent creator, correct? So he couldn't have started it all since his weakness of being life means he could not be the beginning since he, like us, is a product of another beings intelligene.

Now the question being begged is whether gods god is life. If so, then gods god would also need a god and therefore also not be the beginning. So who started it all since it wasn't god...nature? And, of course, if nature could create god then why couldn't it create us...

No. God is, was and always will be. No beginning, no end. Infinite.

 

[AllieBaba]

The Holy Roman Empire was hardly a sect.



what an excuse. jesus charsite!

That's not much of a response, so I'll take it as a compliment.

And the Holy Roman Empire most certainly IS a sect.

 

[AllieBaba]

No. God is, was and always will be. No beginning, no end. Infinite.

The bible tells us that to the unsaved, all will be as foolishness. I see it here every single day. They do backflips and contortions of all sorts just to avoid looking God in the face.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's not much of a response, so I'll take it as a compliment.

And the Holy Roman Empire most certainly IS a sect.

during the time of the holy roman empire...what other christians were there?

 

[AllieBaba]

There were Baptists, dear. True Christians. They've always been around. People have the mistaken impression that all Christianity morphed into Catholicism and it isn't true, not by a long shot.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's not much of a response, so I'll take it as a compliment.

And the Holy Roman Empire most certainly IS a sect.

not much of a response because there was not much to respond to in a serious fashion. I could join in the circle jerk (as I am now doing) but my dick is raw from last time with you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There were Baptists, dear. True Christians. They've always been around. People have the mistaken impression that all Christianity morphed into Catholicism and it isn't true, not by a long shot.

really?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

reality would show Baptists are the sect. Rome was the seat of the mainline church during the Holy Roman Empire. You may want to look up what constitutes a sect before you parade your ignorance around in full public view.

Baptist is a term describing individuals belonging to a Baptist church or a Baptist denomination. The name is derived from a conviction that followers of Jesus Christ are commanded to be baptized (by being immersed in water) as a public display of their faith, and thus most adherents reject infant baptism. While the term "Baptist" has its origins with the Anabaptists, and was sometimes viewed as pejorative, the denomination itself is historically linked to the English Dissenter or Separatist or Nonconformism movements of the 16th century.[1]

Baptists are typically considered Protestants. Some Baptists reject that association (see Origins and Questions of labelling subsections below). Most Baptist churches choose to associate with denominational groups that provide support without control. The largest Baptist association is the Southern Baptist Convention but there are many other baptist associations.

Both Roger Williams and his compatriot in working for religious freedom, Dr. John Clarke, are variously credited as founding the earliest Baptist church in America.[2] In 1639, Williams established a Baptist church in Providence, Rhode Island, and Clarke began a Baptist church in Newport, Rhode Island. According to a Baptist historian who has researched the matter extensively, "There is much debate over the centuries as to whether the Providence or Newport church deserved the place of 'first' Baptist congregation in America. Exact records for both congregations are lacking."[3]

-wikipedia

 

[Anguille]

That's not much of a response, so I'll take it as a compliment.

And the Holy Roman Empire most certainly IS a sect.

Technically, in the strictest sense of the word, it is also a cult.