How about this http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/synthetic-genome-life.htm And this http://neurosciencenews.com/researchers-first-dna-artificial-neural-network-artificial-intelligence/
Both used existing living organisms. I think he's talking about making life from non life. We've had this debate before
What are these weaknesses that cosmologists and physicists have missed? Don't just copy/paste from creationist web sites. Tell us all the evidence that shows Big Bang theory is wrong. And show why all the evidence that seems to indicate Big Bang theory is correct in fact shows no such thing.
Just because we haven't to this point doesn't mean we won't at some point in the future. I mean, how long have we been playing with things at the cellular and atomic level? Several decades? And look at how much we've done in the past few decades - it's staggering how quickly we've made advances in knowledge and technology. But because we haven't yet created a lab-grown human that's proof of the existence of god? And actually, we have created life in the lab. Ever hear of Dolly the cloned sheep? Also - it's "presence" not "presents". On a slightly related note, I've always found the Simulation Argument to be interesting: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html It proposes that at least one of the following statements must be true: 1 - Humans are likely to go extinct before reaching a post-human phase. 2 - Any post-human society would be extremely UNLIKELY to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history. 3 - We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
Not all creationists believe that the big bang is wrong. Personally, I believe it is the most logical concept. Doesn't mean it isn't wrong; but nothing else is empirically more right.
Wow! Now answer me this; If a bright young scientist does create a sentient being will the liberals allow the government to set the crown on him/her as the true God and the center piece of our National religion?
This is how far we have come in 50+ years. This is the first computer that I ever became a user of on a get the job done basis. It was extremely accurate but it weighed about 4 ton and required the prime spot of minimum motion in both pitch and roll. They actually built ships around this beast. It has to occupy the apex of the curve in mans ability to create complex mechanical systems. Today they have little bitty ones that weigh in in fractions of an ounce but they are no more accurate. So the bottom line is weight savings, cost savings but functionally the same. I say again functionally the same. Our progress in creating a sentient being is also right about the same.
Ah, that was a grand contribution my lady. Way to jump right in there. Do you get paid for contributions like this at work?
I know what you know. And according to what we know; matter is not infinite. If you think otherwise; I would like to read why you think it is.
I don't think anything. there is no way to know either way. only bad philosophical arguments that prove nothing.
I've always been kind of in the middle on this topic. Too many holes in the Big Bang and a creator who needed to rest on the 7th day is insultingly absurd. I laughed this off by the age of 7. Whatever and however it happened is beyond human comprehension IMO.
