Man Becomes God.

[Al_Fel]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Scientist-Claims-To-Make-First-Man-Made-Cell-Dr-Craig-Venter-Creates-Synthetic-Life-In-Laboratory/Article/201005315635730?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15635730_Scientist_Claims_To_Make_First_Man-Made_Cell%3A_Dr_Craig_Venter_Creates_Synthetic_Life_In_Laboratory

Well here we go this should be interesting. Let's see what the religious nuts have to say on this matter.

[totaltrials]

Religious answer,

"I don't know anything about it or how they done it, so it's obviously not true"

Anyway, Venter admits he hasn't created life,

"We've created the first synthetic cell. We definitely have not created life from scratch because we used a recipient cell to boot up the synthetic chromosome."

Edited May 21, 2010 by totaltrials

[Hannah Shucksmith]

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT OR HOW THEY DONE IT, SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!

[Mark W]

I'd imagine there was similar outcry when people first worked out how to fly.

See also: Cameras being refered to as 'soul stealers' by other religions.

No way, religion in 'chatting bollocks about science that people don't understand' shocker...

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

As a completely non religious nut I actually think we need to be careful with stuff like this. These people have managed to transplant synthetic DNA into an existing cell to produce a semi man-made bacteria (note not created life but transformed a cell). In my mind they'll have to be very careful to fully understand what they're creating before going any further. I see it being a pretty small step from creating a man-made bacteria cell which is able to replicate to accidentally creating a superbug which replicates faster than any natural cell and is harmful to humans. Or maybe I've watched too many '28 days later' type films.

[Ben Swales]

See also: Cameras being refered to as 'soul stealers' by other religions.

You could look at this as quite an astute observation by the people who say it. The people who are photographed most often (I'm thinking specifically of B-Z list celebrities here, but it could be said to apply to anyone I guess) seem to have 'less of a soul' than those of us who are rarely photographed...

[totaltrials]

You could look at this as quite an astute observation by the people who say it. The people who are photographed most often (I'm thinking specifically of B-Z list celebrities here, but it could be said to apply to anyone I guess) seem to have 'less of a soul' than those of us who are rarely photographed...

It depends if you believe in souls

[MMMM-JASON]

i can see the majority of the christian extremist community geting quite................ well lets say upset about this.

[Al_Fel]

i can see the majority of the christian extremist community geting quite................ well lets say upset about this.

Well all you're going to hear from creationist is stupid shit like "It just proves we were created".

[bikeperson45]

I just generally don't think it's right morally.

[Al_Fel]

I just generally don't think it's right morally.

Ok lets all live in the dark ages and have no more advancements.

[Jamie_Trials]

I think its great, all new things are for a reason, if this stops the common flu symptons then i dont see the problem. If anyone disagrees then we will kill a chicken

[1a2bcio8]

Ok lets all live in the dark ages and have no more advancements.

I think it's fair to be concerned with technological developments. Just because they are "developments" does not instantly qualify them as something good. We need to be, as we are justly critical of religion, critical of science and what it produces. Science can easily have both good and bad consequences and technological "advancements" are not always what we need. In fact, I'd say we are just as greatly in need of psycho-social advancement as much, but probably more, than we are of environmental science. If we were more developed psycho-socially, we wouldn't allow ourselves to be in the situation of possible self destruction, rather than just looking toward more technology to offset the damage of present technology. Be wary of a blind faith in science like that which frequents religion.

The achievement is very interesting and impressive though. I'm somewhat wary about dangers and limitations of application but I'll hold off on proper judgement until I know a bit more about it.

This doesn't have to mean much against a general concept of God but I guess it does no favours for the existence of a Christian one which obviously possesses rigid ideas about the creation of life, if taken literally. Then again, this wasn't really the creation of life rather than the modification of a pre-existing cell structure and function through the introduction of new genetic material to that cell. It's impressive that the genetic material was built from scratch and functioned in some sense but it's still piggybacking off pre-existing life, so it's not really the complete creation of a new life form. This is how I understood it anyway?

Edited May 21, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[NVWOCI WVS]

People on the internet are over-opinionated, in my opinion.

I think it's cool and they should use it to bring dinosaurs back to life!11!!!!1!one!!1!!

[Stanners]

People on the internet are over-opinionated, in my opinion.

I think it's cool and they should use it to bring dinosaurs back to life!11!!!!1!one!!1!!

You not learn anything from jurrasic park

[JT!]

We need to hear from TF's very own creationist nut Joe.

[konstant]

We've been creating recombinant DNA bacteria for years, and have synthesised artificial plasmids which we've then inserted into bacteria (pGLO etc.). This is the next step and is exciting not because what's going on is fundamentally that radical, but because it was not thought to be possible in practice. As a biotech student, I hope this research is allowed to continue.