didymos
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008
|
| Quote (JLT @ May 21 2010,01:29) | | The Craig Venter post is fun. Seems like the UD fundies don't like the idea that humans could "create life." They're all wriggling to downplay Venter's synthetic cell. |
Well, they're now trying to have it count as evidence for ID too:
| Quote | | Now that Craig Venter and company have created an entire genome (admittedly mostly conceptually copied from previous organisms, but still), will we see an end to the argument that we have never seen intelligence produce the code for life, and that therefore life, or at least its code, could be natural (meaning a combination of law and chance) just as easily as it could be a product of intelligence, since we have not seen either produce this code? More important, will we see a formal retraction of this argument? Or will opponents of ID who have used this argument simply shift the discussion somewhere else, ignoring the egg on their faces, or hoping nobody will notice? |
E-Q,U-I-V,O-C-A,T-E! What's that spell? Equivocate, yay!
No, sorry Paul Giem: you don't get to pretend that "produce" means the same as "invent" in this context. Also, who all's been using this particular argument, exactly? Intelligence was always a logical possibility. Problem is, you still have no evidence supporting that notion, Venter and Co. notwithstanding. At best, all that's happened is the Ace Spalien version of ID has gained a bit more plausibility. But hey, you wanna run with that: go for it. Questions remain though: who designed the designers? How'd you manage to rule out that natural origin thing again? Why are you such a dipshit? Well,I think you can see where this is going. Still onboard?
--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio
|
