08 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyNo it wouldn't. Trying and failing is evidence of nothing except that maybe you are doing something wrong. Failing at something can happen even if you do everything right, and yes, the more times you fail, the more likely you are doing something wrong, but this is in no way evidence that what you are trying to acomplish is impossible.
Yes, but if we tried to land someone on Pluto and could not, it would be evidence that we are unable to do so. In fact, the more times we try and fail, the more evidence that would be generated that it was and is impossible.
This is how science works. You experiment and keep trying things, you fail miserably for many, many years, and eventually you figure out what you were doing wrong and fix it (hopefully). It took a long time to be able to clone a sheep, but eventually that was acomplished. Just because cloning was unsucessful over and over didn't show that it was not possible.
08 Jun 06
This thread reminds me of a joke I heard:
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had
come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one
scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we
no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and
do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the
scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this,
let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist
replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in
the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed
himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own
dirt!"
08 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyConsider a lunar landing. If in 1798, England had attempted to send and return a living human to and from the moon, she would have certainly failed. Even if she had tried this 10,000,000,000 times, I'm quite sure she would have failed every time. This is simply because England lacked, among other things, the scientific tools and physical materials needed to accomplish such a grand mission.
Yes, but if we tried to land someone on Pluto and could not, it would be evidence that we are unable to do so. In fact, the more times we try and fail, the more evidence that would be generated that it was and is impossible.
That by no means made it impossible. We know that it is possible to send a human to the moon and back. It just took time and learning.
It is the same with creating life from non-living material. It may or may not be possible, but given that we have only just begun serious work on the project, it is extremely premature to declare that we can never do it.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by kingdanwaThat's hella funny!
This thread reminds me of a joke I heard:
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had
come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one
scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we
no longer need you. We're to the point that we ...[text shortened]... .
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own
dirt!"
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by telerionWhat about dancing on the sun? How many times does it take to fail in order to realize it is impossible? Perhaps in the future we can, no?
Consider a lunar landing. If in 1798, England had attempted to send and return a living human to and from the moon, she would have certainly failed. Even if she had tried this 10,000,000,000 times, I'm quite sure she would have failed every time. This is simply because England lacked, among other things, the scientific tools and physical materials needed ...[text shortened]... egun serious work on the project, it is extremely premature to declare that we can never do it.
08 Jun 06
2 edits
The entire notion of abiogenesis to me is untenable. Conversely, the position of many creationists that the earth is only 6000 years old is equally untenable. This is despite the fact that I am a creationist and hold to the Genesis account. Both posittions require a phenomenal amount of faith in light of scientific observation.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyWhat we've all been telling you is that how many times you fail is not informative as to whether the task is possible or impossible. To show that something is impossible (in a scientific sense) one needs to show exactly why a particular objective could never (even in theory) be accomplished.
What about dancing on the sun? How many times does it take to fail in order to realize it is impossible? Perhaps in the future we can, no?
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by telerionMy position is that a living cell is unknowable in terms of being fully comprehended. What makes something living is a mystery. If I am coorect, one cannot then show how a cell could not be created (in a scientific sense). All that is known for sure is that creating a living entity has never been observed using the scientific method. Abiogenesis is, as a result, pure scientific conjecture.
To show that something is impossible (in a scientific sense) one needs to show exactly why a particular objective could never (even in theory) be accomplished.[/b]
Just as a side note, before creating living matter, perhaps they need to go create some nonliving matter. In other words, they need to go get their own dirt.
08 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBut why should a living cell be beyond our comprehension forever? Give us some reason why we can't learn to understand it. It seems to me that while we certainly don't understand the cell well enough yet, we are well on our way. DNA has been discovered and shown to be the genetic material. It is fairly well understood how it replicates and how it is used to make proteins, we can already synthesize DNA that is in whatever sequence we want, we understand the code used to encode amino acids in the DNA. We are learning how the amino acid structures of proteins affect their shape and thus their functionality, we have mapped the human genome. It seems to me that we are well on our way to being able to understand cells and create our own. We have made incredible progress in a fairly short time. Why is it so hard to believe that in another hundred years we will be able to create cells? What is it that makes cells so special that we can't understand them?
My position is that a living cell is unknowable in terms of being fully comprehended. What makes something living is a mystery. If I am coorect, one cannot then show how a cell could not be created (in a scientific sense). All that is known for sure is that creating a living entity has never been observed using the scientific method. Abiogenesis is, as a result, pure scientific conjecture.
.
We can synthesize nucleotides and DNA. We can make amino acids and proteins and lipids, why shouldn't it be possible to eventually make a complete cell, we can already do many of the parts. It used to be thought that there was something special about compounds that came from living organisms. Then urea, one of the main compounds in urine, was synthesized in a lab. This threw the whole idea on its head and organic chemistry was born. We have shown that there is no magical life force within the parts of a cell. Everything in them can be made in a lab. Why shouldn't we eventually become smart enough to put everything together in the right way and make new cells?
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyWe can certainly produce many of the precursors for cells in a test tube. Normally, it's rather easy, because the reactions are often autocatalytic. Do remember though that science is still rather basic. Give us a couple hundred years, and we'll give you a fully man-made cell, I reckon.
There is evidence to suggest that we can't develope a cell from scratch. That evidence is that we have not been able to do so as of yet. If you feel that we can create a cell, thus giving credibility to abiogenesis, then by all means please share. Problem is, is that we do not fully understand the cell well enough to know that we can create a cell from scr ...[text shortened]... ism would be to fully comprehend the mystery of life itself. All I can say is, GOOD LUCK!!!!!!
08 Jun 06
2 edits
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowWhy could'nt we make a living cell? It is because only God gives life. I have nothing to prove here. It is science that says cells are creatable outside the realm of God. It is science that says they can produce the building blocks of a cell but just can't get them to live as of yet. It is sceince that says they think they understand how the first cells were produced even though it has never been observed. They are the ones with the burden of proof since they claim to understand it. My position is that it is beyond me. Who's the irrational one here. All I can say is times a wasten!!!!!
But why should a living cell be beyond our comprehension forever? Give us some reason why we can't learn to understand it. It seems to me that while we certainly don't understand the cell well enough yet, we are well on our way. DNA has been discovered and shown to be the genetic material. It is fairly well understood how it replicates and h ntually become smart enough to put everything together in the right way and make new cells?
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyThey are the ones with the burden of proof since they claim to understand it.
I agree with you. Scientists are working on it. Now if only your apologists would adopt this work ethic.
My position is that it is beyond me.
Doesn't this sort of defeat everything else you have pronounced about life and the living cell?
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI love your optimism but in a few hundred years we will all be dead. That sounds to me like an easy out.
We can certainly produce many of the precursors for cells in a test tube. Normally, it's rather easy, because the reactions are often autocatalytic. Do remember though that science is still rather basic. Give us a couple hundred years, and we'll give you a fully man-made cell, I reckon.