AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it

People are different because they have souls that are from God."Evolution-in-a-petri-dish" doesn't hurt my faith, but then, evolution itself doesn't either so maybe I don't fit your qualifications for being a "creo".

That's a false dichotomy.Of course, science might have some things wrong, that with the whole tenativity thing, but God could exist and science could be right all while you're not crazy, well I guess that depends on what god said. This line made me reply.Poor track record for science, my ass!How can you say that? What makes you think science has a poor track record (as we communicate over the internet)?

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.

Hrm. Is it possible that you are trying to see misrepresentation and are suffering from Confirmation Bias?Maybe you should concentrate more on what people are trying to say rather than just looking for misrepresentations.No offense.

I think he's sorta jumping back and forth between ex nihilo and not, and within the same post sometimes.Some posts, he just doesn't seem to be saying anything at all.IMHO, he should think more and type less, then read what he wrote and see if he actually said anything. I'm not sure he understands that you're actually creating the legos.And if he is replying that you're not creating the stuff that the legos are made of, then he is just moving the goalposts and going back to the ex nihilo.Now I'm confused at what he's trying to say because he's too inconsistant.

Bullshit.With all the analogies and metphors that get tossed around, I don't believe that you read everyone's post literally.Man, I've really got a stick up my ass today.What am I trying to say?

Yes, but if your interpretations always come back as them misrepresenting, then maybe you should try again and look harder rather than just shouting:MORE MISREPRESENTATIONS!Which you seem to be doing a lot lately. That's why I think you're looking for it and seeing what you're looking for.I'm just saying that you could be trying to read them better. Well then why don't you ask them "Did you mean...." questions rather than just accusing them of misrepresentation? I'm pissy, crabby, bitchy...whatever you want to call it. Kind of the way you would feel if there really was a stick in your ass. I dunno, you're pretty old.... just kidding.But yeah, I think it will happen too but I don't know how close we really are. I assume pretty close. Again true. Its exciting, I can't wait.Sorry to jump on you, it just rubbed me the wrong way.

But that was my point, was that they weren't misrepresentations, you just read it wrong. But if you're misreading and they aren't misrepresentations, then maybe you are misreading because you're looking for misrepresentation.Like in Message 89, where you say that nobody is claiming to have created the legos when MBG has implied that they have and then even directly said it after that.You were just wrong about the misrepresentation and it looked like you were jumping to that conclusion. I'm sorry too.We really should just drop it. This is way off topic.

I think, in a simplified version, that rat is saying that god took "nothing" and created atoms which created molecules which created cells which created life.He is also saying that humans have created molecules which created cells which created life.He is saying that these two creations of life are different because humans have started with "something" and just put the pieces together, or let them put themselves together.He is saying that what god created is life and that what humans created is something-very-close-too-but-not life, because they didn't start with the same materials.Basically, God baked life from scratch and humans used premade ingredients.Is that what you understand him to have said?

Was I correct in my assessment of your position?

Rat seems to think it is relevant. analogies.... That one doesn't seem analogous to what rat is saying.If you live in a cave, can you say you built your home? seems more like his position, IMHO. That's a good argument.

Okay, jeez. Two 'much'es would have done You don't have to make the bricks yourself for it to be a house, but you do have to have made the bricks to say that you created the house (ex nihilo).I think the problem in the discussion is the ex nihilo part. Sometimes people are using the word create with the implication of ex nihilo and sometimes they are not.The fault of your analogy is that the building blocks of life can form life on their own while you couldn't have a pile of bricks turn into a house without placing each brick by hand.That's why I was trying to use a cave, because it forms on its own. But, looking back, there aren't really any building blocks to a cave so it fails.

/nod Am I defending his position? I'm trying to clarify his claim, not really defend it. Just doin my part to keep the straw swept up We're not? I thought we were. Its relevant to distinguish what the scientist have done from normal reproduction. But the process that created it is the discussion. The process is what makes it Artificial Life.From the OP:

quote:

---

Life-from-scratch is going to pose an ... interesting ... dilemma for creos.

---

I think Rat was contesting the whole from-scratch bit, which could be taken to imply ex nihilo, even if it was incorrectly.The process certainly provides a difference for the life, but I agree with you in that if we can't tell the difference after its created then there really isn't any difference.

Well, that's how life normally comes about. Its the standard for comparison. Its artificial because its man-made. Its artificial by definition. The question is: Is it any different from regular-old life?But this topic is: How do creationists react to the development?

Says you The third one has been discussed as well. When did you get to decide what the rest of us are comparing? We know it is man-made a priori, it doesn't matter if we can tell afterwards or not. I can't. The basis is that one of them was, in fact, made by man. It doesn't matter if you can tell them apart or not. Maybe "synthetic" would be a better term, I dunno. They're both life. One was made by man and one wasn't. One is artificial and the other is natural.I'm not labelling artificial life as non-life.