AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

I would like science to answer the question, why can't matter be created or destroyed.

---

What does that have to do with biology? That's a question for physics.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But it doesn't try to answer that. You're trying to make biochemistry answer a question of cosmology.

---

​

Biology came from cosmology, why aren't the two linked?

---

For the same reason that evolution isn't linked to the origin of life.For the same reason that the vending machine doesn't care if the quarter came from the Denver mint or the Philly mint.You do agree that the vending machine doesn't care, yes?Hint: If A and B both lead to C, then C doesn't care if it's A or B and thus is not dependent upon either.

quote:

---

Is it too inconvenient?

---

No, it's too illogical. Biology is not cosmology and thus cannot answer questions of cosmology.

quote:

---

I will say it again, I was believing in evolution for 38 years, then I felt God. What am I supposed to think?

---

That your feelings don't change reality. When we shifted from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian physics, apples didn't suddenly stop falling from trees. Our observations haven't changed just because you found god.

quote:

---

I didn't all of sudden disregard all scientific data, or did I magically become a fundie.

---

And yet, you suddenly started rejecting the findings of science just because you found god. Nothing in the science changed, so why does it matter what you feel? You're not saying that science is dependent upon feelings, are you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

My problem is with the word create, which in this thread has two different meanings.

---

If you mean "ex nihilo," then you should say, "ex nihilo."That said, the Bible doesn't say life came into being ex nihilo. Instead, it came into being from the dust of the earth.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

No, because Demons and God do not exist, we came from nothing, and evolved. I wish I knew what God has to do with science. Only after being wrong so many times.That statement wasn't meant to put down science, but all the faith we put in it. Science is, what it is, and no more. If you know so well, and do nothing about it, then it is partially your fault.

Listen, it doesn't matter when we are discussing about individual events, but when the conversation changes, and we start talking about the bigger picture, then everything must be taken into account.You cat as if I have a problem with what science is doing, I do not, and I accept it. I will not accept that it is proof that God does not exist, only that some of our theories about God are wrong.Plus if we can take what is already available, and create life from it, then so can God. WE didn't start with creating a human, and maybe God didn't either. Really, I don't feel as though I am. I feel as though it is most of you, who are using what biology teaches to answer questions beyond what it teaches. I was only responding. So do we have a right to say we created life? When all we did was take what is there, and copy what already is?I can take a central air conditioning unit, and install it in a house, and give a house air conditioning, but I did not make the units, so what did I create? I only put it together.I see the usefulness in understanding how everything works, and that is important, but to say we created life, bothers me. I am glad you admit we don't know everything. If I really knew the answer to that, I would be a Nobel prize winner.
you are asking me how the universe works, when we can't see the smallest things, or the largest things.

I want you to know, that I do not think my idea of God is mightier than anyone else's, and that I do not have a problem with other religions, or atheists. God created it all, so there is a purpose for it.jar is free to think what he wants, but he is forcing his opinion on me, and mocking my belief's. I find that very wrong.

Really, this whole reply has pointed out the incredibly obvious, way to say nothing.

I am sorry, but that makes no sense to me. They have to be linked. I just said that I didn't. Science helps define my faith.

Which came from where?I'll ask you now, does anything happen on its own?

Rrhain has ranted on and on about how evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, and nothing to do with cosmology.But in the very article from the OP, we find this quote. Why would he be concerned about a place in the universe, or getting answer about cosmology from biology?Not only that: So if they aren't designing it, then they aren't creating it.It's great that we know all this stuff, and it has practical uses in helping people. But it really doesn't answer the bigger questions.There is no "see I told you."So really this statement:
"Life-from-scratch is going to pose an ... interesting ... dilemma for creos. "Is not a problem. There is no dilemma. The word scratch is over rated in that statement. They haven't even designed anything.That's all I wanted to say, until Rrhain turned it into his usual barrage of replies. I'm out.

Wow, it is almost as if you don't need a designer at all just evolution, hmmmm.TTFN,WK

I'm sorry riVeRraT but the quotes you provided have nothing to do with cosmology.The quote you provided says Notice it says "place in the universe" and "creation in the universe". Nothing there about creation of the universe. In fact, absolutely nothing related to cosmology.Then you go on and claim that because they are not designing it they are not creating it. That is so silly. Next time your kids create a mess they can use the argument that since they did not design the mess they did not create it.Sheesh.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Lets say the mess is a bunch of Legos thrown about.Rat is saying that the kids didn't create the legos in the same way that the biologist didn't create the building blocks that they are making thier "mess" from.I think Rat is saying that there is an implication that the building blocks are being created when they are not. I also think that he is saying that the biologist are just playing with legos instead of making legos, themselves. He seems to think that creating life is creating the building blocks and that if you just put the legos together then your not CREATING life, you're just playing with stuff that's already there.I don't particularly agree with his position, but I think you've misunderstood what he's saying, or trying to say, at least.

If so, then that is a strawman since no one has claimed that they are creating the "Legos".If that is what he is trying to say, then it is an even greater misrepresentation of what folk have said.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

CS. Even if what you say is true, rat is still wrong.We did create the legos.Rat seems to think that we need to create the atoms that create the legos.