Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

[billvon]

Yes I have looked at both of those.
And yes what they did was a fact.
It is also a fact that in both cases they only showed that it actually takes an intelligent agent, in this case, the scientist(s) themselves, to create something even resembling life.

Right. The event they are demonstrating is not proof of "this happened naturally" it is "this can happen with ordinary chemical reactions." Miller-Urey, for example, specifically used nothing more than a spark gap to provide the energy for the reactions; in nature, lightning provides that energy. Since getting struck by lightning is logistically difficult, they used an artificial spark gap - but the effect is the same.

It is also a fact that they have not created a fully functional cell. Not even remotely close!!

============
Biologists create the most lifelike artificial cells yet
By Mitch LeslieNov. 19, 2018 , 1:00 PM

No biologist would mistake the microscopic "cells" that chemical biologist Neal Devaraj and colleagues are whipping up at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), for the real thing. Instead of the lipid membrane that swaddles our cells, these cell mimics wear a coat of plastic—polymerized acrylate. And although they harbor a nucleuslike compartment containing DNA, it lacks a membrane like a real cell's nucleus, and its main ingredients are minerals found in clay.

Yet these mock cells are cutting-edge, "the closest anyone has come to building an actual functioning synthetic eukaryotic cell," says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, who was not part of the work. Like real cells, the spheres can send protein signals to their neighbors, triggering communal behavior. And as Devaraj and his team revealed in a preprint recently posted on the bioRxiv site, the "nucleus" talks to the rest of the cell, releasing RNA that sparks the synthesis of proteins. The artificial nuclei can even respond to signals from other cell mimics. "This may be the most important paper in synthetic biology this year," Adamala says.
=============

Even if they were to pull that off some day, they would still only be demonstrating ID.

?? If you bought hexagonal tiles from a hardware store, does that demonstrate that the Giant's Causeway was man-made? If you make some cool ice crystals in a freezer, does that mean that some intelligence is creating every snowflake? Pretty crooked reasoning.

Demonstrating that something can be made by man does not demonstrate that it CANNOT be made by nature. You should know better than that.

 

[Musika]

I don't know what "scientific authority" is supposed to mean - but the electro-chemical basis of the human "spirit" is certainly backed by science. It's the only science that we have on the subject.

It's pretty simple. "The authority of science" means in accordance to the discipline of science as a means of ascertaining knowledge. Sure, science has plenty to say about electro-chemical "things", and it is what we turn to when discussing the subject ... since, you know, electro-chemical is a scientific term. Its just when you try to utilize the term outside it's jurisdiction (namely, science .... like when you claim the electro-chemical is the basis of "spirit"), that you depart from the authority of science in favour of some considerably less remarkable authority (the authority of sideshowbob, perhaps?).

 

[Musika]

You could start with Wikipedia:

"Neuroscientists have examined brain functioning during reported spiritual experiences[158][159] finding that certain neurotransmitters and specific areas of the brain are involved.[160][161][162][163] Moreover, experimenters have also successfully induced spiritual experiences in individuals by administering psychoactive agents known to elicit euphoria and perceptual distortions.[164][165] Conversely, religiosity and spirituality can also be dampened by electromagnetic stimulation of the brain.[166] These results have motivated some leading theorists to speculate that spirituality may be a benign subtype of psychosis (see).[144][167][168][169][170] Benign in the sense that the same aberrant sensory perceptions that those suffering clinical psychoses evaluate as distressingly in-congruent and inexplicable are instead interpreted by spiritual individuals as positive – as personal and meaningful transcendent experiences.[168][169]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality​

Atheists discussing spirituality writes itself as comedy.

Almost as entertaining as examining the "scientific experiences" in examining death by coconuts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut

The moment they try to define "spirit" is the moment they start to play "follow the nochschlepper".

 

[Musika]

Right. The event they are demonstrating is not proof of "this happened naturally" it is "this can happen with ordinary chemical reactions." Miller-Urey, for example, specifically used nothing more than a spark gap to provide the energy for the reactions; in nature, lightning provides that energy. Since getting struck by lightning is logistically difficult, they used an artificial spark gap - but the effect is the same.

============
Biologists create the most lifelike artificial cells yet
By Mitch LeslieNov. 19, 2018 , 1:00 PM

No biologist would mistake the microscopic "cells" that chemical biologist Neal Devaraj and colleagues are whipping up at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), for the real thing. Instead of the lipid membrane that swaddles our cells, these cell mimics wear a coat of plastic—polymerized acrylate. And although they harbor a nucleuslike compartment containing DNA, it lacks a membrane like a real cell's nucleus, and its main ingredients are minerals found in clay.

Yet these mock cells are cutting-edge, "the closest anyone has come to building an actual functioning synthetic eukaryotic cell," says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, who was not part of the work. Like real cells, the spheres can send protein signals to their neighbors, triggering communal behavior. And as Devaraj and his team revealed in a preprint recently posted on the bioRxiv site, the "nucleus" talks to the rest of the cell, releasing RNA that sparks the synthesis of proteins. The artificial nuclei can even respond to signals from other cell mimics. "This may be the most important paper in synthetic biology this year," Adamala says.
=============


?? If you bought hexagonal tiles from a hardware store, does that demonstrate that the Giant's Causeway was man-made? If you make some cool ice crystals in a freezer, does that mean that some intelligence is creating every snowflake? Pretty crooked reasoning.

Demonstrating that something can be made by man does not demonstrate that it CANNOT be made by nature. You should know better than that.

Once again, there is a huge difference between synthesizing life and synthesizing the chemicals life utilizes. This is just a more advanced version of synthesizing urea .... and, funnily enough, it is surrounded by the same Woo factor in the scientific community as it did 250 years ago.

 

[billvon]

Once again, there is a huge difference between synthesizing life and synthesizing the chemicals life utilizes. This is just a more advanced version of synthesizing urea .... and, funnily enough, it is surrounded by the same Woo factor in the scientific community as it did 250 years ago.

A "more advanced version of synthesizing urea" is a good way to describe abiogenesis.

 

[Write4U]

As you know, God made man from the dust of the Earth.

If you know, how did he do that? In one day? Playing with mud?

 

[Write4U]

Its just when you try to utilize the term outside it's jurisdiction (namely, science .... like when you claim the electro-chemical is the basis of "spirit"),

What makes you think electro-chemistry is not the basis of sentience and sensory processing?

I think you are way out of your jurisdiction here. You don't even know the definition and use of the term "spirit". It is a religious, not a scientific term.

And that is because you do not read the references and links explaining these things to the average layman.
You are not a scientist. You cannot make scientific statements based on you knowledge of religion.

But, patient as we are with ignorance, here is a hint;

A spirit is a supernatural being, often, but not exclusively, a non-physical entity; such as a ghost, fairy, or angel.

The concepts of a person's spirit and soul, often also overlap, as both are either contrasted with or given ontological priority overthe body and both are believed to survive bodily death in some religions,[2] and "spirit" can also have the sense of "ghost", i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.

In English Bibles, "the Spirit" (with a capital "S"), specifically denotes the Holy Spirit.
Spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality.
Historically, it was also used to refer to a "subtle" as opposed to "gross" material substance, as in the famous last paragraph of Sir Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica.

An incorporeal but ubiquitous, non-quantifiable substance or energy present individually in all living things.[citation needed]Unlike the concept of souls (often regarded as eternal and sometimes believed to pre-exist the body) a spirit develops and grows as an integral aspect of a living being

In religion and spirituality, the respiration of a human has for obvious reasons become seen as strongly linked with the very occurrence of life. Spirit, in this sense, means the thing that separates a living body from a corpse—and usually implies intelligence, consciousness, and sentience

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit

That's why the term "spirit" is not a scientific term. It is a mystical term for "consciousness", whis is a scientific term. And of course is a result of electro-chemical functions in the brain.

 

[Write4U]

Apparently I am insane then. That would explain a few things. I will tell my wife!
Hey Honey...

Please do and save her from disappointment when she finds out there are no spirits and there is no heaven.

 

[Bells]

Study the Shroud of Turin and decide for yourself.

It has been studied.

And was found to be fake.

What does this have to do with abortion?

Unless the figure drawn on the fake cloth is of an over sized aborted foetus, I really fail to understand why you keep relying on fake things posted online to try to prove your point.

 

[Bells]

We make choices, in a way like Adam and Eve did.

We know what is right from the conscience God has given us. But we choose evil, we choose to sin against God and our fellow man. We choose to steel, and then lie about it, for example. We decide to blame God, with an unthankful heart. Even for the gift of life itself. And each time we choose evil our heart grows just a bit more calloused, just a bit harder, colder.

And I assume you know the gospel account after that and have rejected it, right? Or am I wrong. I love to be wrong about some things. It means I can grow and become a better person.

Ok, time for everyone to laugh out loud, and rip me to pieces and call me backward, and stupid.

I am more curious about your inherent hypocrisy.

For example:

And, I could be killed for saying this, but what the heck. Allah is most certainly not Great!!!

Send out the death squad!!! Cut off me head!!!

I take it your god embraces bigotry as well?

Or are you adding that for extra flavour and spice?

 

[Write4U]

Demonstrating that something can be made by man does not demonstrate that it CANNOT be made by nature. You should know better than that

I would argue that whatever man can make is proof that it can (and most likely has) spontaneously happened in nature if universal evolution demanded it. What man can do, the universe can and almost certainly already has done it. If man does not use the right mathematics as allowed by natural constants, the experiment will fail. We do not create reality, reality creates us, physically.

As Hazen observed, the natural global laboratory of earth (24/7) has performed ;
2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical experiments, during the earth's life-time.
That is the dynamic chemistry of just one small planet on the outskirts of an unremarkable galaxy. And mankind has performed how many experiments in how many laboratories?

This means that, given the time and spatial resources, everything we see in the universe did in fact emerge naturally.......kinda obvious......it kinda tinkers with itself......continuously.......it likes fractal and wave patterns especially.......

Humans are natural beings, patterns of nature. We are animated patterns of nature.

 

[Musika]

A "more advanced version of synthesizing urea" is a good way to describe abiogenesis.

Except at the end of the day, all that is done in the name of advancement is fabricating the by-products of life, as opposed to life itself.

 

[Write4U]

Except at the end of the day, all that is done in the name of advancement is fabricating the by-products of life, as opposed to life itself.

Nothing is done in the name of anything except probabilistic "orderly change", which rests on universal mathematical constants and like many other bio-organisms humans have learned to use some of these constants for our own specific purpose. In humans this is ability expressed to an extreme. We make stuff we don't need. That's really strange as compared to other species in nature.
OTOH, we do know more about nature than most bio-organisms....we lack their native wisdom.

 

[Capracus]

No, same brain, theism adds the Soul. Which is not part of this Naturalistic Existence.

The Soul is the real you, a Spirit, living in a body, not constrained by Naturalistic Determinism.

That is the only way Free Will exists!

Where is it in the human body that the soul resides? Is it a specific location, such as the cerebrum of the brain? Or does it inhabit the entire body?

 

[sideshowbob]

Its just when you try to utilize the term outside it's jurisdiction (namely, science .... like when you claim the electro-chemical is the basis of "spirit"), that you depart from the authority of science in favour of some considerably less remarkable authority (the authority of sideshowbob, perhaps?).

Science has the same "authority", even if you prefer a spookier explanation for "spirit". Science is a self-supporting structure anchored in many fields. You can't remove it from one field without undermining all of the others, so we don't.

 

[sideshowbob]

Atheists discussing spirituality writes itself as comedy.

This has nothing to do with atheism.

 

[billvon]

Except at the end of the day, all that is done in the name of advancement is fabricating the by-products of life, as opposed to life itself.

Life is composed of those by-products. Human life, for example, requires consuming the by-products of life for its own existence.

 

[Musika]

Life is composed of those by-products. Human life, for example, requires consuming the by-products of life for its own existence.

Talking about what something requires to exist or function is a different subject than talking about what something is. A plumber is a lot more than just a toolbox with plumbing tools.

 

[Musika]

This has nothing to do with atheism.

Sure.
It is just about relegating the "spiritual" to the psychological .... which just happens to be the path well trodden by atheists.

 

[Musika]

Science has the same "authority", even if you prefer a spookier explanation for "spirit". Science is a self-supporting structure anchored in many fields. You can't remove it from one field without undermining all of the others, so we don't.

Sure, that's what I mean.
This is why your ideas are way outside of left field, scientifically speaking.