Technology3 mins ago
Creationism
Why do many scientists refuse to believe in creationism when a new species is created using GM? Isn't the altering the genetic structure of plants by using the rearrangement of genes similar to creating the whole from the available amino acids but on a smaller scale?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I suppose that many believe that the stage from when the Earth existed and amino acids were available some creator of greater intelligence than ourselves used these building blocks to form life as we know it. We now know its possible to arrange, rearrange the genetic code.
But can anyone say for certain what existed at time zero, if it ever existed. before the universe came into being? Even evolutionists have to start from somewhere.
But can anyone say for certain what existed at time zero, if it ever existed. before the universe came into being? Even evolutionists have to start from somewhere.
The problem with creationism is that it avoids the question.
OK lets say some greater being created us - who created him/her?
Your Creationist syas "that's a mystery we can never know"
Well I can cut out a layer of complexity by saying "We can never know wher life came from"
Apparently though that's not playing the game!
Oh there was no time before the Universe came into being because - and you're not going to like this. Space and time was linked.
There was no before there is only an after. Space and Time both started in the big bang.
To ask what there was before the big bang is like asking you what you were doing before you were conceived - it's not a meaningful question.
We know this because we know how space and time are linked. We see time slow in strong gravitational fields - in a black hole ( which is a bit like the big bang in reverse ) time stops
OK lets say some greater being created us - who created him/her?
Your Creationist syas "that's a mystery we can never know"
Well I can cut out a layer of complexity by saying "We can never know wher life came from"
Apparently though that's not playing the game!
Oh there was no time before the Universe came into being because - and you're not going to like this. Space and time was linked.
There was no before there is only an after. Space and Time both started in the big bang.
To ask what there was before the big bang is like asking you what you were doing before you were conceived - it's not a meaningful question.
We know this because we know how space and time are linked. We see time slow in strong gravitational fields - in a black hole ( which is a bit like the big bang in reverse ) time stops
Creationism is not science, it�s religion. But so long as its here I�ll say what I would have said there:
It took us some 13.7 billion years just to develop the capacity to conceive that the universe exists. Here in the dawn of reason we can as yet only speculate as to how it came to be . . . and that with the benefit of hindsight. Whether we will ever be able to create (or destroy) a universe like our own remains to be seen. But at this point it is becoming abundantly clear that if we didn't have this universe in which to develop faculties of perception and reason we (or any other creature you might care to imagine) would never have acquired the ability to think, let alone purposefully create . . . anything.
Our understanding of the universe and how we came to be within it has grown exponentially in the last 100 years, a drop in the bucket of time the universe has existed. What we might learn in the next hundred or thousand or million or billion years is unimaginable. But if we've learned anything it is that knowledge is built up slowly and deliberately piece by piece through a painstaking process for which there are no shortcuts.
It took us some 13.7 billion years just to develop the capacity to conceive that the universe exists. Here in the dawn of reason we can as yet only speculate as to how it came to be . . . and that with the benefit of hindsight. Whether we will ever be able to create (or destroy) a universe like our own remains to be seen. But at this point it is becoming abundantly clear that if we didn't have this universe in which to develop faculties of perception and reason we (or any other creature you might care to imagine) would never have acquired the ability to think, let alone purposefully create . . . anything.
Our understanding of the universe and how we came to be within it has grown exponentially in the last 100 years, a drop in the bucket of time the universe has existed. What we might learn in the next hundred or thousand or million or billion years is unimaginable. But if we've learned anything it is that knowledge is built up slowly and deliberately piece by piece through a painstaking process for which there are no shortcuts.
Meanwhile, creating a 'creator' in our own image explains nothing. Creationism is itself a creation that demonstrates a blatant disregard for the clearly evident ability of the methods of science to explain not only things we can see but also things we can only observe indirectly through an unbroken chain of non-contradictory identification. Creationism is a stab in the back of the scientific process, attempting to claim legitimacy with the blood it has drawn like a leach feeding on its victim.
You are free to believe what you wish but in order to bridge the chasm between what you choose to believe and what you should truly know you have got to do the maths. Believing what science has proven does not of itself provide you with knowledge. Science can only provide you with the method for verifying and justifying your beliefs.
This is the motivation behind creationism�s attempts to embezzle the legitimacy of science. Riding on the coattails of science serves no purpose but to slow scientific progress. If creationists ever hope to have a lasting success it is the same science from which they have always sought their authority and whose advances they have so often condemned, they must rein in and harness to their chariot of glorified ignorance.
You are free to believe what you wish but in order to bridge the chasm between what you choose to believe and what you should truly know you have got to do the maths. Believing what science has proven does not of itself provide you with knowledge. Science can only provide you with the method for verifying and justifying your beliefs.
This is the motivation behind creationism�s attempts to embezzle the legitimacy of science. Riding on the coattails of science serves no purpose but to slow scientific progress. If creationists ever hope to have a lasting success it is the same science from which they have always sought their authority and whose advances they have so often condemned, they must rein in and harness to their chariot of glorified ignorance.
Foprget the Bible and reference to God. Just imagine there was/is a higher intelligence than ourselves somewhere out there. They have the ability to take Amino Acids, join them together to make genes and ultimately living things. Impossible you say? But scientists living today working for Monsanto have the ability to do just this. So the only hurdle is to assume there is someone with greater intelligence than ourselves. With a mean of just 100 the IQ is easily exceeded so what IQ would be necessary, 200, 300 or what? With gene manipulation of IQ ours could easily be exceeded. Science fiction or what, keep an open mind.
Nobody believes Darwin wasa completely wrong. But take an analogy of a software engineer writing a program to do a specific task, maybe even Windows Operating system. Since its birth it has numerous patches and updates. Then take living organisms...not exactly perfect but modified for the conditions in which we live. In other words the species has been designed but later additions have improved them. To think humans have arrived from simple organisms is not only totally daft but impossible to achieve.
Why do many scientists refuse to believe in creationism when a new species is created using GM?
Creationism is creating something, houses, rockets, planets.
Genetically modifying something is taking something living and MODIFYING it to obtain desired charcteristics. Its not creating...just enhancing!
they are both 2 different things.
Many scientists dont believe in creationism as thats a Subjective based opinion...Most follow evolution, that we evolved and wasn't created!
Creationism is creating something, houses, rockets, planets.
Genetically modifying something is taking something living and MODIFYING it to obtain desired charcteristics. Its not creating...just enhancing!
they are both 2 different things.
Many scientists dont believe in creationism as thats a Subjective based opinion...Most follow evolution, that we evolved and wasn't created!
1 to 14 of 14
