The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

I do believe in creation so yes you could argue I belive in God but not the one from religious texts. I think I know my beliefs better than you.

We have not created life from the ground up. Not even close.

Sorry, but you will lose this debate. I suggest you stop now. It's obvious you believe in a all powerful God, so you cannot be taken Seriously!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It's obvious you believe in a all powerful God, so you cannot be taken Seriously!

Your prejudice is a part of the impediment to global harmonization.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

So, you are all talking rubbish! lol

You don't know what you're reading. They modified an E. Coli strain... Which is an already existent lifeform. Then they modified it. They didn't create life.

"In the latest work, Romesberg’s team has shown that this partially synthetic form of E. coli can take instructions from this hybrid genetic alphabet to make new proteins."

a reply to: Grenade
You may want to keep the following in mind:

The first example linked by Jay-Morris is a bit similar* to what Craig Venter did in 2010 (*: or it has the same issues when used in the context it was used by Jay-Morris, then it's the issues that are similar), responded to by James Tour at 40:50 (context starts at 40:00):

The description used by Jay-Morris for these sort of experiments, "we have created basic life", is rather dubious, to say the least. But I don't think I can say it any better as the analogy used by James Tour at 41:00 - 42:07 in the more detailed presentation regarding this subject above.

Here's the context for the 1st video, of particular interest may be the 2nd question at 1:32: "Can scientists build the most basic life forms?". In regards to Jay-Morris' claim that "we have created basic life". Almost the same words.


In the middle video (the long presentation) there's another example regarding the question of "How close have researchers come to making an artificial cell?" at 50:33 - 53:50.

a reply to: Jay-morris

You need an English class r sump'n. Those experiments you tried to
pass off. Do nothing for your argument young man. As I said they
simulate in your own word "creating" more than anything else.

Have your little psycho spasm call me names storm off in your stilettos.
Until you can prove that experiment can happen outside a lab with no
petri dish no creator scientist? You have missed the mark.

Because that is what

YOU

believed happened.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Grenade
You may want to keep the following in mind:

The example linked by Jay-Morris is a bit similar* to what Craig Venter did in 2010 (*: or it has the same issues when used in the context it was used by Jay-Morris, then it's the issues that are similar), responded to by James Tour at 40:50 (context starts at 40:00):

The description used by Jay-Morris for these sort of experiments, "we have created basic life", is rather dubious, to say the least. But I don't think I can say it any better as the analogy used by James Tour at 41:00 - 42:07 in the more detailed presentation regarding this subject above.

Here's the context for the 1st video, of particular interest may be the 2nd question at 1:32: "Can scientists build the most basic life forms?". In regards to Jay-Morris' claim that "we have created basic life". Almost the same words.

Oh great! A scientists who happens to be religous!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: Jay-morris

As the link says

There were just eight ingredients: two proteins, three buffering agents, two types of fat molecule and some chemical energy. But that was enough to create a flotilla of bouncing, pulsating blobs — rudimentary cell-like structures with some of the machinery necessary to divide on their own.

So, you are all talking rubbish! lol

You're missing words such as "cell-like structures". With "some" of the machinery necessary to divide on their own.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

You need an English class r sump'n. Those experiments you tried to
pass off. Do nothing for your argument young man. As I said they
simulate in your own word "creating" more than anything else.

Have your little psycho spasm call me names storm off in your stilettos.
Until you can prove that experiment can happen outside a lab with no
petri dish no creator scientist? You have missed the mark.

Because that is what

YOU

believed happened.

And again! You ramble on with no counter argument! You do not even understand lolol.

You are clueless about your own religon, and clueless about science, as you have shown in this thread!

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: Jay-morris

As the link says

There were just eight ingredients: two proteins, three buffering agents, two types of fat molecule and some chemical energy. But that was enough to create a flotilla of bouncing, pulsating blobs — rudimentary cell-like structures with some of the machinery necessary to divide on their own.

So, you are all talking rubbish! lol

You're missing words such as "cell-like structures". With "some" of the machinery necessary to divide on their own.

I am not missing anything! This is all new, and if you have any basic knowledge, you would know it's only a matter of time until we create more life from scratch. I guess the life we will create will be called mini demons by religous people lolol

a reply to: Jay-morris

And again! You ramble on with no counter argument! You do not even understand lolol.

You are clueless about your own religon, and clueless about science, as you have shown in this thread!

You really are laughable miho!

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

And again! You ramble on with no counter argument! You do not even understand lolol.

You are clueless about your own religon, and clueless about science, as you have shown in this thread!

You really are laughable miho!

People are laughing at you! lol

a reply to: Jay-morris

Got any more proof for us? lmao

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

Got any more proof for us? lmao

Well, the way you ignore posts and dodge questions is proof enough!

a reply to: whereislogic

And I thought there were no scientists who knew what I knew. lmao
Thank you again for posting his vids I have a new hero.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Well, the way you ignore posts and dodge questions is proof enough!

Just quit sniveling all over yourself.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

Well, the way you ignore posts and dodge questions is proof enough!

Just quit sniveling all over yourself.

Again! Ignoring posts and dodging questions lololol Just like most religious people!

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: Jay-morris

As the link says

There were just eight ingredients: two proteins, three buffering agents, two types of fat molecule and some chemical energy. But that was enough to create a flotilla of bouncing, pulsating blobs — rudimentary cell-like structures with some of the machinery necessary to divide on their own.

So, you are all talking rubbish! lol

You're missing words such as "cell-like structures". With "some" of the machinery necessary to divide on their own.

I am not missing anything! This is all new, and if you have any basic knowledge, you would know it's only a matter of time until we create more life from scratch. I guess the life we will create will be called mini demons by religous people lolol

So your argument against creation is that we as human beings can design and create life.

Again, your argument against intelligent design and creation is that we can create life through intelligent design.

WOW, just WOW.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Grenade

At best he will show how scientists used a pre existing
bacteria changed a number of codons and called it new life.

They didn't create life they changed pre existing life.

Total BS.

All semantic's

What? It's obvious that the way technology is going, that it's only a matter of time begore we create more life. You have been pretty much clueless throughout this thread, so I do not expect you to understand.

Again! You are talking absolute rubbish!!



How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch link

From that link:

In September 2017, researchers from 17 laboratories in the Netherlands formed the group Building a Synthetic Cell (BaSyC), which aims to construct a “cell-like, growing and dividing system” within ten years, according to biophysicist Marileen Dogterom, who directs BaSyC and a laboratory at Delft University of Technology. The project is powered by an €18.8-million (US$21.3-million) Dutch Gravitation grant.

In September, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) announced its first programme on synthetic cells, funded to the tune of $10 million. And several European investigators, including Schwille, have proposed building a synthetic cell as one of the European Commission’s Future and Emerging Technologies Flagship schemes, which receive funding of €1 billion.

Profitable business isn't it?

“Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words.” (2 Peter 2:3a)

By the way, those supposed "17 laboratories" are actually described as "17 team-leaders" that "work for 6 Dutch research institutions" on their own website. I already had a feeling.

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Grenade
If you want scientific proof then you could look at something like Kurt Godel's Ontological Proof which uses Modal Logic. Essentially proving mathematically that god exists. Not saying i believe it but if you ask a computer the logic is sound.

Sorry, but ontologocial argument is not scientific, not math, and not proof of anything. It's nothing but philosophism (just sophistry and word games that are outdated) made up by people that knew nothing about the universe compared to what we know now. There is no logic at all in that argument.

The scientific logic cannot be doubted. The axioms could be brought into question but that could be said for most Theory.

Um, have you actually looked at the argument. There is no science involved and the logic is flimsy at best. Equating an apologetic argument to science is completely ridiculous. It's not evidence, not math based and certainly holds no merit whatsoever in science.

Show me direct measurable evidence of dark matter? A very widely accepted scientific theory. Or show me an experiment to detect a Graviton. A lot of science needs a little bit of faith.

1. Dark matter is a HYPOTHESIS, not a scientific theory.

2. Gravity waves have been measured directly.

3. None of this validates the ontological argument, it was a complete deflection and red herring.

Its mathematically sound logic. Whether its viable or true i can't even speculate however it just goes to show that if you spin equations long enough you can "prove" anything.

What math equations are used in the ontological argument? Post them, please. The argument is a giant "what if" statement. You claimed science and math was involved, so lets see it.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Grenade

At best he will show how scientists used a pre existing
bacteria changed a number of codons and called it new life.

They didn't create life they changed pre existing life.

Total BS.

All semantic's

What? It's obvious that the way technology is going, that it's only a matter of time begore we create more life. You have been pretty much clueless throughout this thread, so I do not expect you to understand.

Again! You are talking absolute rubbish!!



How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch link

From that link:

In September 2017, researchers from 17 laboratories in the Netherlands formed the group Building a Synthetic Cell (BaSyC), which aims to construct a “cell-like, growing and dividing system” within ten years, according to biophysicist Marileen Dogterom, who directs BaSyC and a laboratory at Delft University of Technology. The project is powered by an €18.8-million (US$21.3-million) Dutch Gravitation grant.

In September, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) announced its first programme on synthetic cells, funded to the tune of $10 million. And several European investigators, including Schwille, have proposed building a synthetic cell as one of the European Commission’s Future and Emerging Technologies Flagship schemes, which receive funding of €1 billion.

Profitable business isn't it?

“Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words.” (2 Peter 2:3a)

Does not matter what you think. I proved my point!

a reply to: Jay-morris

It's not even a debate. More like when my children throw their toys out of the pram when they don't get what they want.