I wish I had a dime for every time a creationist has smugly told me...?

Question

"Scientists can't create life in a laboratory from chemical building blocks, so God must have done it!!"

Well,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299857,00.html
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange

My question is simple...
Will creationists now eat their words raw, or will they cook them first?
Maybe add some spices?
Or, will they just deny ever having said such a thing?

ROTFLMMFAO

Answer 1

They'll just draw a new line in the sand. That's been true throughout history.

Answer 2

Craig Venter does it again. Actually there is nothing really new in this, people have been poking new genes into bacteria since the 1970s. But it looks like the new DNA sequence is entirely synthetic instead of being clipped out of some other cell. An entirely synthetic gene seem to be an expensive way of going about things but I suppose it means you get complete control.

However I note they did not synthesize the cell machinery. "Creating life" is putting it a bit too strongly.

Answer 3

in the state of affairs u gave each and every thing is so sparkling-decrease. regrettably the evolution concept isn't so clearcut. First, on your tale, we've 4 finished flesh & bone wolves. you're making it relatively straightforward that they are even nonetheless residing. In evolution, we've some fragments of previous bones that should belong to wolves, coyotes, canines or goodness is conscious what number now-extinct wolf-like creatures that existed a million years in the past. Lord is conscious the themes if a coyote ate a cat one thousand years later a pair yards remote from that comparable place. we would be listening to how the bones from the coyote became smaller than the wolves yet comparable, so as that meant that the coyote more suitable from the wolf etc. Secondly the state of affairs you gave could additionally stick to to creation. via fact for me data of creation is as sparkling-decrease as that state of affairs u gave. Thirdly, human beings ask for data of creation too. i'm happy which you're saying which you dont ought to work out some thing for one to renowned that it occurred. replace: there is not any mountains of information or it would now no longer be stated as the Evolution concept. yet basic experience shows clever layout. occasion: placed each and all the aspects to create a vehicle in a room. leave them there for 10 million years with purely nature to act on them. What happens after 10 million years? basic experience says that many of the aspects will rust & turn ino mould (or likely purely crumble). it fairly is evolution. for specific after 10 million years evolution wouldnt create a wonderfully workin vehicle. actually evolution wouldnt create even an INPERFECTLY working vehicle. yet placed a mechanic in that room with trhose aspects. It wouldnt even take 10 days to place at the same time a wonderfully working vehicle. you like data of creation. Use the present that God gave you. Your innovations. (which by the way is extra data of creation. If evolution can not produce some thing as base as a vehicle in 10 million years, how can it create a innovations or a watch by accident some distance much less an entire man or woman!!) Evolution is like an ungainly great elephant in a china shop. creation is a surgical precision gadget. You my pal is a made from a grasp craftman. end being so egocentric & understand his artwork & provide thank you.

Answer 4

I've never heard anyone say that actually, lol. Everyone is talking about how scientists are making life from scratch. Scratch? Not really. If they really were, they would have to create every little thing in a sort of vaccum (every tiny cell). They're using materials from other living organisms. I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm just saying I don't see it happening in the near future like everyone predicts.

Answer 5

Wait till science makes an army of Shoggoths and has them eat all those creationist fools!!

Answer 6

Unfortunately, none of them will view this as "creating life".

They want scientists to produce a living, breathing human being "from a pile of dirt" by snapping their fingers.

Of course, if a scientist were ever to agree to these conditions, they'd have his research funding withdrawn because he would be "playing God".

Answer 7

This calls to mind another widely-heralded "scientific breakthrough". Take a look:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/06/30/clone.lab.txt/

Just because a scientist says that they will do something does not mean that it will happen. Even if he does succeed in making this "life," it will be interesting to see just exactly what it is capable of doing. In order for something to fit the scientific definition of life, it will have to metabolize, reproduce, and adapt to an environment through internal changes.

Answer 8

Whatever they created came from some matter previously created by God. Unless they created something from absolute nothing, I will not be impressed. God is all knowing and all powerful. He makes the rules and created everything. He said it so I, as part of His creation, believe it. If that makes me a fool in your eyes, know that I am praying for you. God's blessings to you.

Answer 9

Ever take reading comprehension classes?
Read the article again.
They created a chromosome and implanted it in an already existing bacterium, thus, in their eyes creating a new life form.
NOBODY created life in a lab.
They CHANGED and already existing life form.
Now who is laughing, genius.
How would you like your crow cooked.

Answer 10

Dayum, that's pretty amazing! What they'll be saying now is, "How DARE man play God?!"