I don't have the answer (no one does). But god doesn't answer the question.
Like I say, I'm not trying to offend or convert anyone. I'm not saying there is a god.
But what I have never understood is how some people that believe in science can say categorically that there
isn't .
I'd have thought that with increased knowledge there must be more openmindedness ( ? ) about any ridiculous answer as being potentially the right one.
I never said there isn't a god. I just don't see why there should be or ANY evidence that there is one.
I'm not being closed-minded, exactly the opposite. Show me a reason to think there is a god and I'll acknowledge there is a god. Until then, I'll continue to go on thinking there isn't.
Completely agree with this. I'm not closed off to the possibility that there is a god, I just won't believe it until I see it. Science has never proved that there isn't a god, and there are possibilities where the existence of a god and the big bang theory could go hand in hand. But yet science has never proved that there is a god either. Aliens on the other hand I do believe in, even though I have never seen one, purely because I think it's very arrogant of us to assume that we are the only sentient living beings in the entire universe.
Oooh, exciting stuff. Poses a big ethical question though. Should we be allowed to create life from something not living? Sounds a bit God-like to me. For the purposes of understanding how life on Earth started, or indeed on other planets, it would be a valueable tool, but not sure I'd like us creating sentient life (not that we are anywhere near that yet) willynilly all over the place.
I don't think there is an ethical problem here at all. This is more like a chemistry experiment than a biological one. There is certainly no possibilty of getting within 2 billion years of anything self-aware in these experiments. Where the first self-replicating molecules came from is a question with many possible answers at the moment, and possibly one that will never be convincingly answered. What happened from there to where we are now is most definitely answered (unless you're one of those strange people who thinks the universe is 6000 years old, obv.). Actually trying to explain where these first molecules came from is something that is definitely worth investigating and testing.
It's quite difficult to even define "living" when you have such basic stuff as this. Just saying something replicates doesn't even cover it - I can grow a sugar crystal in a sugar solution and it's effectively replicating itself, but I doubt you'd call the sugar crystals you put in your tea living. Ditto for viruses even - the line between living and non living is sometimes drawn beyond them, and most viruses are more complex than the stuff they're playing about with here.
It's interesting stuff for sure.
Yes I know that we are nowhere near being able to create sentient life yet, and tbh I don't have a problem with us creating life unless we start using it for our own gain. It's like this issue of "designer babies". If we are to create life for the sake of creating life then go for it. For example I don't have a problem with IVF etc. But if we are creating life for a particular purpose then that to me is unacceptable. And as some have said on the Hadron Collider thread, wherever there are humans, there will be humans willing to exploit stuff like this for their own gain.
Author