|
Author
|
Topic: AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
Re: Well, Actually, It Has
And you say life isn't designed 
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
Message 163 of 185 (420918)
09-10-2007 10:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 160 by Rrhain
09-07-2007 4:46 AM
|
|
Re: You beat me to it!
No, who said anything about "linked"? Nobody is saying life isn't made of chemicals. What we're saying is that it doesn't matter where the chemicals came from or the process by which the chemicals come together. If the end products are identical, then they are the same thing. I thought the whole purpose of AL, was to show that life can happen on it's own? If we are not replicating just how that can happen on it's own, then we aren't proving that much. If anything, it only proves even more that it takes ID to make life.
But you reject the truth when it conflicts with your faith. Why? I haven't rejected anything said here.
You don't accept observable events? You can accept the fact that you witnessed an event, but just exactly how or why, remains to be seen. Plus many people see things that are either not there, or really didn't happen the way they thought it did. Magic is a good example.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2007 4:46 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 3:38 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 164 of 185 (420919)
09-10-2007 10:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by Rrhain
09-07-2007 5:04 AM
|
|
Then would you claim the results of a chemical process to be a "biological machine" and not "life"? Why will you not be satisfied until we can clap our hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear? Why is a chemical process insufficient to have "life" as a result? What is it about the definition of "life" that prevents it from arising chemically? You keep asking me, and Catholic scientist, what the difference is between the two, yet you keep stating the difference.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2007 5:04 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 168 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 3:46 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 165 of 185 (420921)
09-10-2007 10:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 162 by Rrhain
09-07-2007 5:22 AM
|
|
I never said that. But since you bring it up, are you saying that there is a special tag on life that says, "Lovingly Created in Heaven by God"? That if you don't find the "Genuine Life" hologram on the protons, it isn't a valid version? Is there something different about oxygen atoms in a biological organism compared to oxygen atoms in a water molecule? If I take water, lemons, and sugar, and blend them together in the right amounts, I can "create" lemonade. Big deal, the chemicals already existed for that to happen. Did I really "create it"? What is more amazing is that we are able to figure it out. Tell me, what are the odds that this universe exists, our planet formed, and we came about, and then became intelligent enough to understand what we are made of? Don't you find that a little against the odds? Your the math person. What are the real odds that we are even having this conversation? I am not saying that this whole concept of making artificial life doesn't amaze me, because it does. Let's wait and see how far it goes, and what we can benefit from it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 162 by Rrhain, posted 09-07-2007 5:22 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 166 by nator, posted 09-10-2007 10:44 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied | | | Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 4:15 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 170 of 185 (423202)
09-20-2007 7:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 167 by Rrhain
09-12-2007 3:38 AM
|
|
Re: You beat me to it!
All good points rrhain. I get it, really I do. But I am not as educated on it as you. So when you ask, does anything really happen on it's own, aren't you asking a bigger question? Don't we have to wonder why, any of this can happen, and does? It sure makes me believe that there will be life elsewhere in the universe, but it doesn't dampen my belief in God, since I don't really take Genesis so literal. I still find it so amazing that life can arise, and evolve, then study itself, and wonder where it came from.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 3:38 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 171 of 185 (423204)
09-20-2007 7:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 168 by Rrhain
09-12-2007 3:46 AM
|
|
But that isn't a difference. You seem to be saying that the process by which something comes into being has an effect on what it is. Well it does, in a matter of speaking. But more specifically, I am saying it matters, because forcibly putting together the elements of life, does not prove that life happens on its own. Everything has to be there first, in order for it to happen. When we clone things, it appears to be the same, but then it's not. BTW, water is not life.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 168 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 3:46 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 172 of 185 (423205)
09-20-2007 8:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by Rrhain
09-12-2007 4:15 AM
|
|
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? How is that not a big deal? Before, there wasn't any lemonade. Now there is. How does his lemonade differ from lemonade created any other way? Why does the process by which something comes into existence affect what it is? Lemonade is not life, your confusing to different thoughts again.
So? It is irrelevant where the chemicals came from. No, thats my point. You seem to think that it is. I could take pipe made in America, and put together a boiler, or I could take pipe made in China, and put together a boiler. There the same right? No they are not. The pipe made in China will not last as long, and sometimes, it even has holes in it from the start. It matters where everything comes from. If it didn't then you wouldn't mind buying a car made in China, or having me put in cheap Chinese pipe in your basement.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 4:15 AM | | Rrhain has not replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 178 of 185 (423782)
09-24-2007 10:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 176 by Rob
09-24-2007 12:47 AM
|
|
Re: a molecule is not always a molecule...
Thanks Rob, Wounded King just proves your point. I guess most people here then, wouldn't mind if I put Chinese pipe fittings in there $7000 boiler. I am in over my head on this subject, but there are some common sense questions that can be asked.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 176 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 12:47 AM | | Rob has replied |
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
RR, can you support your contention that a water molecule created in the lab is chemically, structurally, or functionally different from one that is natural? It could be more pure than water. Show me one place on earth that has water as pure as that which is created in a lab. I don't know if this relevant: Danger? Nano-Infested Waters Created in the Lab - Scientific American Can you prove that there is absolutely no difference between the two, especially since we do not fully understand things down to levels smaller than the molecular level? I am open to the idea that it is the same, but also realize that it may not be the same. Plus I wouldn't use this example to show that all things assembled at the molecular level are then stable. We have already tried making new elements, and they are not stable, and do not stay together. (at least that is what I remember from HS). We may be able to combine oxygen and hydrogen and make water, but that does not mean we can do things more complicated than that. Using that example in this debate is an untruth.
|
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 447 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: 05-09-2004
|
|
|
Message 184 of 185 (424541)
09-27-2007 11:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by crashfrog
09-24-2007 6:00 PM
|
|
No, it doesn't. The Chinese stuff is inferior because it's made from inferior steel with inferior manufacturing techniques, not because stuff from China is automatically fundamentally different. In other words, it matters in which the way you put things together, thank you for agreeing with me. That was my point, in other words.
Chinese stuff is only inferior because of inferior metallurgy and manufacturing techniques, not because iron atoms mined in China are fundamentally different than atoms from Minnesota's Iron Range. Right, so it matters. Atoms are not life.
Of course, your problem is that if an evolutionist is telling you something, you believe that the opposite is probably true. I won't argue, but that is untrue. I take to heart everything that is said to me here. Evolutionists are not evil people, they are evol people.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2007 6:00 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2