|
cliveindia7 (October 8, 2008 at 1:02 am)
I dont think it is possible for science to produce grass through this method. It would be like sticking bits of matter together to create an animal. It needs to be living first and to develop from a parent/host. Through genetic engineering we can create new species of plant. We can genetically engineer new complex systems. Genetics over time would lead to new cells, plants, organisms developing. So the naturalistic universe is able to produce new complexity. Even if we can't.
cliveindia7 (October 8, 2008 at 12:48 am)
Science has replicated the process by which elementary particles formed amino-acids (one of the stages of cell development). There are infact many compounds science can produce. Stars produce and release most of the universe's elements. Hydorgen/helium are very simple elements and developed shortly after the big-bang. If we had sufficient energy, science could replicate these processes. They are fairly straight forward scientifically.
mdiem (October 7, 2008 at 10:46 pm)
huh, I didn't know Dawkins was African.
utSlymJym (October 7, 2008 at 7:00 pm)
I Quote > "The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce."
utSlymJym (October 7, 2008 at 6:57 pm)
TY Stalwart, u beat me to it. This is one seriously confused fella.
govindadasa (October 7, 2008 at 6:18 pm)
the scientists cannot produce even a single blade of grass by biochemistry, yet still they claim that life is produced from matter. You, a living entity, can mix hydrogen and oxygen to create water. But matter itself has no creative energy. If you place a bottle of hydrogen near a bottle of oxygen, will they automatically combine without your help?
stalwartatheist (October 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm)
Can you not even begin to see how hypocritical you're being? And now, to boot, you're attacking my intellect, which is generally a precursor to defeat. I'm sorry if you find it uncomfortable to be confronted with logic, reason, intelligence, evidence, proof and common sense, but that is your problem and not mine.
govindadasa (October 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm)
Therfore because you cannot see the brain behind the material universe and the sringent laws we are all under, you foolishly conclude that nature is working automatically. Just like the child who thinks the motor car is running automatically.
stalwartatheist (October 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm)
What you seem to be saying is "since I, govindadasa, cannot explain how the universe came to be, I will choose to believe in a legend about a god who made it all". This is not a wise thing to believe. I don't know how the rockets on a NASA spaceship work, should I therefore believe that there are goblins in there burning pixies? Of course not, I know that SOMEONE knows how the rockets work, and that there's no magic involved.
stalwartatheist (October 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm)
"where did evolution come from and the natural laws we see at work in the universe"
Why do you feel so strongly that they must have come from somewhere? Why do you find it so hard to accept that nature organises itself? Look at a diamond, it's a marvel of order, and it happens entirely naturally as a result of the chemical properties of carbon, there's no guidance necessary, carbon does it all by itself. Besides, as already mentioned, the lack of a scientific answer does not mean god exists. |
