The Energon Pub

We are God.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070820/ap_ ... icial_life


I don't know why I didn't see this coming. I guess I was caught up in the whole idea that there are just some things humans cannot do. That God, or nature, or whatever is still so much more powerful than us.

But of course it makes sense.


It's too early for me to have any kind of real judgement.

Discuss.

"Creating protocells has the potential to shed new light on our place in the universe," Bedau said. "This will remove one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role."

I disagree. Figuring out the mechanics of cells and the physical means by which they evolve doesn't address the question of the purpose or place of human life. In fact, this article could be used by adherents of many different positions to support their arguments: "We can create life, and the necessity of "God" or any such being in explaining life is hereby obsolete," versus, "You see! New life only came about with intent, yet weaker than that which we know. Intelligent design by a higher being shaped our world!"

We know more or less what makes cells, so it's unsurprising we could more or less make our own and let Darwinian mechanics take over from there.

I think the criteria for divinity extend beyond creation of life. Plus humanity is not omnipotent.

lkavadas wrote:I think the criteria for divinity extend beyond creation of life. Plus humanity is not omnipotent.

According to The Bible, neither is God.

I should prob. stay out of this. However, It's about friggin' time(yes it's still too soon to claim triumph), but all the X-tains who say only god can create life, bugger off! I don't believe in god, however, many people that I love do, so I say more power to them. It's only a matter of time before humans master everything that we can, creating life is just another step. This pushes god back into the metaphysical realm. Too many people try to bring him/her into our reality when it's just am impossibility. God is created by man, not the other way around. Given enough time and energy expended we(humans) will/can answer all questions posed by our knowledge. This however, means, that there will be more, many more questions. it is our goal as a species to think and to figure things out.

Professor Smooth wrote:

lkavadas wrote:I think the criteria for divinity extend beyond creation of life. Plus humanity is not omnipotent.

According to The Bible, neither is God.

Elaborate.

Professor Smooth wrote:

lkavadas wrote:I think the criteria for divinity extend beyond creation of life. Plus humanity is not omnipotent.

According to The Bible, neither is God.

And I care what the bible says why? Because we all know it's actually the word of god, completely infallible, and meant to be taken literally.

Something can be considered a god if:

*It can create life froms scratch
*Is omnipotent
*Is immortal

Human can probablt create life soon, but right now we aren't god and we will never be.

Nico wrote:Something can be considered a god if:

*It can create life froms scratch
*Is omnipotent
*Is immortal

Human can probablt create life soon, but right now we aren't god and we will never be.

by most religous dogma humans are immortal. and a great many gods are neither omnipotent nor immortal.

Yeah, I was under the impression that if we have souls, that we can not be destroyed, therefore making us immortal. So by leaving our physical bodies, we supposedly cross into the parallel plane where other immortal beings reside. This could possibly explain the concept of heaven being in the sky, yet invisible and intangible. So if one being obtains powers to create life in this dimension (and other supposed God-like powers), why can't others? For that matter, why does this dimension require an entity in another in order to exist? Would it not be easier to keep it simple and just create life in the dimension where the entity exists, instead of creating life in another dimension? Mind you, I'm not trying to attack any specific religion, just throwing this out there since just about all religions believe in the concept of an afterlife in another place.

I might be going off on a tangent, but I just started thinking about this.

I think it's interesting, and a fairly amazing feat, but, what are they actually going to do with them? They arnt creating these just because they can are they? What are they going to use them for in the future, once they adapt and get stronger?

Tangent wrote:I think it's interesting, and a fairly amazing feat, but, what are they actually going to do with them? They arnt creating these just because they can are they? What are they going to use them for in the future, once they adapt and get stronger?

and here comes the frankenstein complex.... I really wish the general public would be a bit more trusting, or at least a bit more well read. science is but a tool, nothing more. really mother nature is alot better at making superbugs than we are(you should be alot more worried about "natural bugs developing antibiotic resistance)pretty much anything we design she can do better, a very large problem in industry using either genetically altered bugs to produce stuff like insulin, vitamins, beer, protein, is that evolutionarily it's better for the bug to concentrate on survival than the over production the chemical we've bred it for, this reversion to wild type(strain degeneration) is a pain in ass, mother nature wins over scientists

man-made life forms will one day offer the potential for solving a variety of problems, from fighting diseases to locking up greenhouse gases to eating toxic waste.

Tammuz wrote:

Tangent wrote:I think it's interesting, and a fairly amazing feat, but, what are they actually going to do with them? They arnt creating these just because they can are they? What are they going to use them for in the future, once they adapt and get stronger?

and here comes the frankenstein complex.... I really wish the general public would be a bit more trusting, or at least a bit more well read. science is but a tool, nothing more. really mother nature is alot better at making superbugs than we are(you should be alot more worried about "natural bugs developing antibiotic resistance)pretty much anything we design she can do better, a very large problem in industry using either genetically altered bugs to produce stuff like insulin, vitamins, beer, protein, is that evolutionarily it's better for the bug to concentrate on survival than the over production the chemical we've bred it for, this reversion to wild type(strain degeneration) is a pain in ass, mother nature wins over scientists

man-made life forms will one day offer the potential for solving a variety of problems, from fighting diseases to locking up greenhouse gases to eating toxic waste.

I have compleate trust in science, I was just wondering if they are planning to take all the industrial and medical aspects of current modified bacteria to the next level, or just create something new with an entirly different purpose. I didnt mean to sound like a, um, whats the word? Sceptic?

I think it's a matter of finding out how it works first, and finding ways to use it second. It's been that way with many scientifical breakthroughs.

I'm Zod? KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! Oh, wait you said God?

Tangent wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Tangent wrote:I think it's interesting, and a fairly amazing feat, but, what are they actually going to do with them? They arnt creating these just because they can are they? What are they going to use them for in the future, once they adapt and get stronger?

and here comes the frankenstein complex.... I really wish the general public would be a bit more trusting, or at least a bit more well read. science is but a tool, nothing more. really mother nature is alot better at making superbugs than we are(you should be alot more worried about "natural bugs developing antibiotic resistance)pretty much anything we design she can do better, a very large problem in industry using either genetically altered bugs to produce stuff like insulin, vitamins, beer, protein, is that evolutionarily it's better for the bug to concentrate on survival than the over production the chemical we've bred it for, this reversion to wild type(strain degeneration) is a pain in ass, mother nature wins over scientists

man-made life forms will one day offer the potential for solving a variety of problems, from fighting diseases to locking up greenhouse gases to eating toxic waste.

I have compleate trust in science, I was just wondering if they are planning to take all the industrial and medical aspects of current modified bacteria to the next level, or just create something new with an entirly different purpose. I didnt mean to sound like a, um, whats the word? Sceptic?

A skeptic would be saying it wouldn't work, an alramist is how i interpretated you in your last post.

what do you mean by "the next level"?

By 'next level' I guess I meant increasing their productivity somehow, maybe making the bacteria which produce or digest material live longer, or be easier to breed, or simply produce more. To be honest I don't really know much about it, I only know the very basics on how it all works but I know many industries utilise such bacteria extensively and was simply wondering what uses they could be created for in the future.

I certainly didn't mean to seem like an alarmist either. Anything we can produce won’t stand a chance outside of a lab. I’m not too worried about superbugs either, nor am I expecting a manmade zombie plague anytime soon.