when they turn their skills to cranking out new life forms?! Yeah. They'll be good gods . . .
Posted on 09/10/2006 5:38:02 AM PDT by voletti
At the moment, what passes for genetic engineering is mere pottering. It means moving genes one at a time from species to species so that bacteria can produce human proteins that are useful as drugs, and crops can produce bacterial proteins that are useful as insecticides. True engineering would involve more radical redesigns. But the Carlson curve (Dr Carlson disavows the name, but that may not stop it from sticking) is making that possible.
In the short run such engineering means assembling genes from different organisms to create new metabolic pathways or even new organisms. In the long run it might involve re-writing the genetic code altogether, to create things that are beyond the range of existing biology. These are enterprises far more worthy of the name of genetic engineering than today's tinkering. But since that name is taken, the field's pioneers have had to come up with a new one. They have dubbed their fledgling discipline “synthetic biology”. Truly intelligent design
One of synthetic biology's most radical spirits is Drew Endy. Dr Endy, who works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, came to the subject from engineering, not biology. As an engineer, he can recognise a kludge when he sees one. And life, in his opinion, is a kludge.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
Where did matter come from?
Where did it's properties come from?
Where did order and complexity come from?
There are scientific (non-deific) theories that address all of those questions.
There is also what the bulk of Christians who understand science believe: God sits OUTSIDE the Universe. His omniscience is so far beyond our understanding that creation of a Universe with an entire set of working laws that we are barely getting the inlkling of fathoming.
But as designed and implemented, the Laws don't NEED Divine Intervention.
Thanks for the ping!
Of course, my example of ions seeking an ordered state refutes metmom's blanket assertion, and you should know that. (You probably do).
"What Flood? There was no Flood."
??? There have been all matter of 'floods', the dispute seems to be about 'The Flood' of Noah's time being a total earthly flood. Moses words are the whole earth, however, given we are told the purpose of the flood, seems to indicate that purpose would defined the amount of land mass flooded. Sure would be an interesting story to have a DNA sample of those individuals who were to be destroyed by that flood of water.
Given what we are told about that 'olive leaf' and the length of time Noah and others were on the ark, sure does not sound like a complete global immersion.
However Jeremiah describes another flood wherein nothing was saved and he is not describing Noah's time 'Flood'.
Flood capitalized means worldwide flood on these threads.
And there is zero scientific evidence of one.
Geological evidence would do,
A little bit of arithmetic would convince anyone who can count that there is not enough water on earth to cover all the land masses at the same time.
Of course miracles do not require arithmetic or evidence, so science cannot prove that a global flood happened in such a way as to leave no evidence.
when they turn their skills to cranking out new life forms?! Yeah. They'll be good gods . . .
Does your math include all frozen water if melted?
It's not my math, but the answer is yes. The scientific search for evidence of a global flood rapped up around 1830 -- long before Darwin.
If it happened it didn't leave evidence.
I didn't know that according to creation science, ice melts and generates a greater volume of water than the volume of the ice itself.
I am surprised that 1830 is when 'scientific search" ended given that global warming scientists seem to be in fear of melting polar ice.
If the surface of this earth were level seems there would be a different calculation required. Driving through various parts of this country alone one can visible see layers of deposits lifted from where they once were.
I suppose if the earth were as smooth as a billiard ball, a small amoutnt of water might cover it.
But wait, the earth is actually smoother than a billiard ball, and water doesn't cover it.
As for your observation of deposits lifted and moved, that's generally the work of glaciers. If you are interested in stuff like that you might try studying geology.
Yep those Rockies sure are smooth.
Just an FYI:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env300.htm
Disclaimer: I have not run the numbers myself to verify this.
Interesting forum I participate in:
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php?t-33.html
Interesting and thank you.
So I have to back off a bit. A billiard ball has surface irregularities amounting to 0.2% and the earth, 0.3%.
The urban legend dies, sort of.
Now, back to whether the earth could have been covered with water, absent a miracle that erased all evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.