Phantom Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Many have tried.. all have failed.. Life cannot come from non life with spontaneous generation.. Been proven over and over again by many.. Very true. It's known as the law of biogenesis: Life is only possible from life. Spontaneous abiogenesis itself is a violation of natural laws. Maybe the Darwinists will wake up and realize this one day. Blah.
wez Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Hey Aery... does this definition of hypocrite match yours.. and match the bible? Hypocrite: One who judges, labels, and looks down on others for being what they in fact, are. Anything missing?
ImWithStupid Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Many have tried.. all have failed.. Life cannot come from non life with spontaneous generation.. Been proven over and over again by many.. But they are getting close... Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life By Alexis Madrigal September 08, 2008 | 10:30:34 AMCategories: Biology A team of biologists and chemists is closing in on bringing non-living matter to life. It's not as Frankensteinian as it sounds. Instead, a lab led by Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School, is building simple cell models that can almost be called life. Szostak's protocells are built from fatty molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids that contain the source code for replication. Combined with a process that harnesses external energy from the sun or chemical reactions, they could form a self-replicating, evolving system that satisfies the conditions of life, but isn't anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe. While his latest work remains unpublished, Szostak described preliminary new success in getting protocells with genetic information inside them to replicate at the XV International Conference on the Origin of Life in Florence, Italy, last week. The replication isn't wholly autonomous, so it's not quite artificial life yet, but it is as close as anyone has ever come to turning chemicals into biological organisms. "We've made more progress on how the membrane of a protocell could grow and divide," Szostak said in a phone interview. "What we can do now is copy a limited set of simple [genetic] sequences, but we need to be able to copy arbitrary sequences so that sequences could evolve that do something useful." By doing "something useful" for the cell, these genes would launch the new form of life down the Darwinian evolutionary path similar to the one that our oldest living ancestors must have traveled. Though where selective pressure will lead the new form of life is impossible to know. "Once we can get a replicating environment, we're hoping to experimentally determine what can evolve under those conditions," said Sheref Mansy, a former member of Szostak's lab and now a chemist at Denver University. Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life | Wired Science from Wired.com
wez Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 But they are getting close... Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life | Wired Science from Wired.com Just because we humans consider a single cell the smallest form of life, doesn't make it necessarily so.. Take those nucleic acids away and they got squat..
Phantom Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Hey Aery... does this definition of hypocrite match yours.. and match the bible? Hypocrite: One who judges, labels, and looks down on others for being what they in fact, are. Anything missing? Yes many. 'A wise man judges all things.' And 'All Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, correction, and rebuke.' My Christian friends and I refer to it as the 'Judge not fallacy' whenever we get the 'judge not' passage thrown in our face or are accused of being hypocrites for fearlessly discussing the Gospel. Anti-theists think the judge not passage is an easy and fail safe way to put us in our place when we convict them or remind them there is a God. Oh, and to answer your question: That is pretty much what a hypocrite is. Not the label part or formulating opinions but most definitely looking down on. Absolutely. Blah.
Phantom Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 But they are getting close... Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life | Wired Science from Wired.com Oh my. That looks like intelligent design to me. Blah.
wez Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Yes many. 'A wise man judges all things.' And 'All Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, correction, and rebuke.' My Christian friends and I refer to it as the 'Judge not fallacy' whenever we get the 'judge not' passage thrown in our face or are accused of being hypocrites for fearlessly discussing the Gospel. Anti-theists think the judge not passage is an easy and fail safe way to put us in our place when we convict them or remind them there is a God. But we're also told to judge correctly.. and not for our own benifit, as it is the "looking down on", part that distinguises hypocrisy.. The wish to punish someone for what you are/do yourself.. Could you post a definition for me of exactly what you think makes a hypocrite?
wez Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Oh my. That looks like intelligent design to me. hehehehe... Me too
Phantom Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 But we're also told to judge correctly.. and not for our own benifit, as it is the "looking down on", part that distinguises hypocrisy.. The wish to punish someone for what you are.. Could you post a definition for me of exactly what you think makes a hypocrite? I was still updating my comment while you posted. I agree with your definition of a hypocrite to some extent. Basically, coming to personal conclusions and even labeling people is not necessarily hypocritical. However, looking down on people for doing what you do is absolutely a hypocrite. This is normal human behavior, though, that we are all guilty of. Those who are honest with themselves will admit it. I'm a hypocrite, too, at times. Blah.
Guest sheik-yerbouti Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 hehehehe... Me too Yep, damned intelligent these scientists....
emkay64 Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I'm an atheist. I guess I'm just a big ol' hypocrite. I believe I'll rot when I die. Please feel free to enlighten and condemn me. I'm indifferent. Have at it. I hate that word BTW (hypocrite)....we really need a new one around here. Might I suggest" tartuffe", or "pharisee"...hell...I'll even take "phony"
Guest sheik-yerbouti Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Many have tried.. all have failed.. Life cannot come from non life with spontaneous generation.. Been proven over and over again by many.. How would we know? No human was around to take the measurement millions of years ago. Blue green algae was the first living thing scientists think.
wez Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I was still updating my comment while you posted. I agree with your definition of a hypocrite to some extent. Basically, coming to personal conclusions and even labeling people is not necessarily hypocritical. However, looking down on people for doing what you do is absolutely a hypocrite. This is normal human behavior, though, that we are all guilty of. Those who are honest with themselves will admit it. I'm a hypocrite, too, at times. It's not normal.. it's abnormal and it's taught and learned behavior.. No one is born a hypocrite..
wez Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I'm an atheist. I guess I'm just a big ol' hypocrite. I believe I'll rot when I die. Please feel free to enlighten and condemn me. I'm indifferent. Have at it. I hate that word BTW (hypocrite)....we really need a new one around here. Might I suggest" tartuffe", or "pharisee"...hell...I'll even take "phony" Sexy.. you are far from a hypocrite.. Never have I seen you judge, label, and look down on anyone for being what you are.. ever. Atheist and theists alike despise being on the receiving end of that sh t... Hypocrisy is not confined to the bible.. or religion. And has nothing to do with believing or not believing in God.. But does have to do with the teachings of Christ.. Whom also has lessons for theists and atheists alike.. for everyone. Too bad some people have seemed to claim ownership over those teachings through labels.. Shame, it's the opposite of what Christ taught.
wez Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Know what else is funny? There's many "atheists" that are more "Christian" than many self proclaimed "Christians".. One of lifes great mysteries.. Jesus had the answers.
emkay64 Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I have a problem praising someone or something that requires so much praise
ImWithStupid Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I have a problem praising someone or something that requires so much praise Then you shouldn't train a dog or a wez.
emkay64 Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 My Dog doesn't require temples and such materialism. A chew toy, a run and a chest rub seem to work for it. I am more than capable of that amount of praise.
Phantom Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 My Dog doesn't require temples and such materialism. A chew toy, a run and a chest rub seem to work for it. I am more than capable of that amount of praise. God doesn't either. Just sayin'! Blah.
emkay64 Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 God doesn't either. Just sayin'! Would a chest rub work for God...a chew toy perhaps?
Guest sheik-yerbouti Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Know what else is funny? There's many "atheists" that are more "Christian" than many self proclaimed "Christians".. One of lifes great mysteries.. Jesus had the answers. Wez, you are so right. There are many totally moral atheists, like for example The Dali Lama. I consider myself also to be a moral person. I have never, and will never, commit a criminal act. I'm not simply afraid of karma. I despise weakness of character. I am responsible for everything I do. Some atheists are arseholes, just as some theists are arseholes. I hate the label that some theists attach to all atheists.
Phantom Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Would a chest rub work for God...a chew toy perhaps? Hey, that would work for me at least! But only from Gerard Butler. If someone just came up and started rubbing my chest without at least looking like Gerard Butler, they might end up on the receiving end of my unholy fury. Blah.
ImWithStupid Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Hey, that would work for me at least! But only from Gerard Butler. If someone just came up and started rubbing my chest without at least looking like Gerard Butler, they might end up on the receiving end of my unholy fury. Do you mean this loser... .
Phantom Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 The Dali Lama. Yikes. Bad example. You should look into what all the Dali Lama is currently involved in. Not to mention the history of Dali Lamas is on par with what the papacy was guilty of in the dark ages of Christianity. Subjugation of their people, molesting children, fiscal abuse, wars and uprisings, etc. It's not pretty. Blah.
Recommended Posts