TheWolf said:
See your own title.
The way you talk and present whatever you're trying to do implies that this discovery of these bacteria somehow goes against any religion doctrine that speaks about the creation of life.
This is a bare decleration without any argument backing it. How does the way I talk and present this imply my intent is to poo poo creationism? Either way, given that we're all agreed that this does not suggest creationism is false/unlikely, I don't really see the point of further speculation as to unspoken (indeed contradicted) inferences.
Quote:
I still see no reason why this discovery would go against any creationist view.
I still see no relevance to this thread. If you wish to connect it to the thread, please make an argument to that end. Either way, given that this has been gone over several times and nobody seems to disagree, I fail to understand the point of this rhetoric.
Quote:
Your point is eluding, still.
I'm just here trying to understand what you're even talking about.
It seems to me Kickle has already answered whatever question you have asked in terms of Christian creationist views, etc.
If anything it would be able to support the whole "God in its infinite knowledge created all forms of life" notion so it seems redundant to continue on.
How does Kickle's statement moot this discussion? This is another bare decleration lacking any argument. While I would have to agree with Kickle, I don't see what that has to say about the implications here. In particular, the issue of what this suggests about other variations on the usual C, N, O, P, S scheme seems interesting. It would seem to me, as stated previously, that the Christian god would not create one organism with unique chemistry such as this in the absence of similar organisms. For the same reason that an artist would be presumed by me to have painted other scenes similar to the one we have to examine, I would imagine the same things of god due to his similarity with the human psyche- having jealously, love, hate, anger, spite, revenge, et cet. Seems very human and reason to suspect a human approach to creating life.
Doc_T said:
I was saying that existence of arsenic-bacteria in a lake doesn't imply there are more in other lakes. Jehovash is capricious.
And if I'm reading MSNBC's article right, these bacteria were as much created by humans as discovered by them.
"Jehovash is capricious" ? I don't get what that means?
Anyways, I pretty much agree with you regarding the press coverage, but that's not actually what happened. They put the critters into phosphorus-depleted media and they incorporated As in place of P and continued to reproduce and live. There's no reason to believe they weren't doing this in the first place, that was just a test to see if the As-substituted biomolecules could sustain life. Your body will also incoporate As, but then you die, so they needed to show that not only were the enzymes, DNA, whatnot containing this As, but that they could live and work with it.
Further studies will surely examine things more closely.
While this is surely artificial conditions, its as much "making them" as it would be to give anything As and see if they live. Certainly seems like a natural phenomena- if not it would be even more revolutionary I would imagine- things don't switch gears that quick without prexisting capabilities.
The media coverage is a bit silly. If you're interested in the actual study, Annom posted it in the Science forum's thread.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
TheWolf 
soldatheero 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 ... 51 52 )
zorbman
Blastrid
vampirism
Shroomism
tryptonite
flickedbic
Asante
akira_akuma