Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

More on the science of life

February 7, 2013

To the editor: One of the comments made in regard to the Jan 10 letter “How did life begin?”was: “Using the existence of a god as the default for everything not currently explainable is a sad way......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(7)

Zorromcgee

Feb-08-13 3:34 PM

I am sure that this info will bounce off the letter writer like bullets off superman but here is a link to some info for you-***********foxnews****/scitech/2010/05/20/scientists-announce-produce-living-cell-using-manmade-dna/

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TURBO75

Feb-08-13 4:23 PM

So life is not a tractor, it's a library, thanks for clearing that up.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Feb-09-13 1:38 AM

ZM: 2 things: First, I would like to read the article you referenced. Could you please outsmart the Journal's software so that the web address is decypherable? Thanks.

Second, I would be interested in knowing what point you are making. Could you state your argument a bit more fully? Thanks.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Feb-11-13 9:32 AM

If you copy and paste the link to the search box on google it will take you directly to the article. The letter writer sated "it looks to me that scientists around the globe have worked very hard to find an explanation on how life began from dead chemicals and have gotten nowhere" THis article appears to refute that statement. I am sure, however, that you will not agree.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Feb-11-13 5:45 PM

I don't know if this article proves what you think it proves. The article states:

"...this initial step is more a re-creation of existing life -- changing one simple type of bacterium into another -- than a built-from-scratch kind.."

So if we are to take the article at face value, we would have to say that it does not show that scientists have been able to do in a lab what evolutionists say happened when life began.

Even if it did, it would not prove that life came into being by chance. Saying that scientists are able to do "A" in a lab is not at all the same as saying that "A" can occur on its own, as evolutionists contend.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Feb-12-13 10:27 AM

MT-Well I was right in predicting that you would not like it. And it does not explain how all life began, but it is a step in that direction.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Feb-12-13 2:45 PM

The moment the letter writer introduces the factory into his tractor argument he shows his bias. He is reaching a conclusion without considering the facts. There is no evidence of a factory in this woods and to conclude that one exists is nothing but speculation. One can choose to "believe" this factory exists based on a cultural, spiritual, or religious foundations but there is nothing in science to support it. Intelligent design has a place to be taught in religion classes but it has no place in science where its study is only based in facts.

As for the library contention, every library begins with one volume and and continues to build from that modest beginning.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 7 of 7 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web