Scientists Creating Life From Scratch

Rubberbando writes "MSNBC is running a story about bioengineering organisms to do specific tasks such as produce hydrogen or ethenol. It also goes into the risks and ethical issues of playing with this sort of science. Some of the scientists involved are saying it's more of an art instead of a science due to its 'biohacking' style of experimentation."

Comments

Re:I am going to sue

[Spy der Mann]

Yea right, like you have any lawyers up there!

But He IS the judge. :)

Re:Becoming a god

[DarkOx]

Well, to answer your question God did make us in his own image and did give use many many gifts, including our thoughts and feelings. The article talks about building an organism not string up a bunch or random chemicals and seeing what happens. Its sounds an awful lot like a simpler less devine more human act of ID to me.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Dogma bit set low for some, high for others

[NoOneInParticular]

The symmetry is broken by examining the nature of inquiry that allows the proof or disproof of the theories. The belief in the existence of something can only be verified (simply by showing that the thing exists). However, it is impossible to falsify the statement. The belief in the non-existence of something is -- for the same reason -- not verifiable, only falsifiable (again by showing that the thing exists).

Your statement 'If there can be no proof of God, there can be no proof of Godlessness' is thus false. The logically correct statement is '... there can be no disproof of God, and there can be no proof of Godlessness', or alternatively, getting rid of a couple of negations: the existence of God can be proven, not disproven, the absence of God can only be disproven, not proven.

I hope the asymmetry is clear.