[net.religion] Secular Humanism/Existence of God

richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (10/25/85)

> A leaf.  Make me a leaf using all your accepted physical, chemical (and
> biological) theories.
> ray

I hate to disappoint you, ray, but I'm fairly certain that one of the first
major cloning experiments was to do just that.  They succeeded about five
years ago.  Sorry.  God is not necessary for a leaf to be created.  Or, 
for that matter, a baby.  He/She/It probably does exist (I believe so, 
even if you do or do not), but not because of such flimsy proof as you
would offer.


				orstcs!richardt
				"The Apparition"
Richard Threadgill
1230 NW 23rd #7		- SnailMail address recently changed
Corvallis Or       

"You put the tribbles *Where*???"
			-- Captain Kirk, loosely

bill@hpfcla.UUCP (10/31/85)

>> A leaf.  Make me a leaf using all your accepted physical, chemical (and
>> biological) theories.
>> ray
>
>I hate to disappoint you, ray, but I'm fairly certain that one of the first
>major cloning experiments was to do just that.  They succeeded about five
>years ago.  Sorry.  God is not necessary for a leaf to be created.  Or, 
>for that matter, a baby.  He/She/It probably does exist (I believe so, 
>even if you do or do not), but not because of such flimsy proof as you
>would offer.
>
>Richard Threadgill
>1230 NW 23rd #7		- SnailMail address recently changed
>Corvallis Or       

Ah, but isn't cloning just tweeking the natural laws that make a leaf,
and thereby changing its appearance, or duplicating it?  Scientists have NEVER
created a DNA that builds a perfect leaf.  The cloning example is like
taking a priceless painting, photocopying it, and then saying "See?  I made
one just like it - the painter was not necessary!".  You're ignoring the
fact that God did the real work of designing the leaf in the first place, and
creating a blueprint that replicates that leaf over and over.

Same goes for a baby.  Sure, a man and a woman get together and make one,
and sure, we can take an egg out of a woman's body and sperm from a man and
make one, BUT WE CAN'T CREATE THE BLUEPRINT THAT PERFECTLY CREATES A HUMAN!!

Thus, I think there's some validity to the initial challenge.

Bill Gates
ihnp4!hpfcla!bill-g

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/04/85)

> Ah, but isn't cloning just tweeking the natural laws that make a leaf,
> and thereby changing its appearance, or duplicating it?  Scientists have NEVER
> created a DNA that builds a perfect leaf.  The cloning example is like
> taking a priceless painting, photocopying it, and then saying "See?  I made
> one just like it - the painter was not necessary!".  You're ignoring the
> fact that God did the real work of designing the leaf in the first place, and
> creating a blueprint that replicates that leaf over and over. [GATES]

And YOU'RE assuming that there is a god who did this "design" work...
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/04/85)

In article <48000001@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP (Bill Gates) writes:
> 
> >> A leaf.  Make me a leaf using all your accepted physical, chemical (and
> >> biological) theories.
> >> ray
> 
> Scientists have NEVER
> created a DNA that builds a perfect leaf.  The cloning example is like
> taking a priceless painting, photocopying it, and then saying "See?  I made
> one just like it - the painter was not necessary!".  You're ignoring the
> fact that God did the real work of designing the leaf in the first place, and
> creating a blueprint that replicates that leaf over and over.
> 
> Same goes for a baby.  Sure, a man and a woman get together and make one,
> and sure, we can take an egg out of a woman's body and sperm from a man and
> make one, BUT WE CAN'T CREATE THE BLUEPRINT THAT PERFECTLY CREATES A HUMAN!!
> 
> Thus, I think there's some validity to the initial challenge.

Tell you what.  Make me a leaf, using all your accepted theology.

What?  You don't think that's a valid challenge?  Why not?  You're certainly
not handicapped by the time factor, the way evolutionary biologists are.

The problem is that you are requesting a piece of the system (us) to duplicate
a process of the system (evolution.)  This falls afoul of a common fallacy
of argument: the fallacy of decomposition.

The fallacy of decomposition is the idea that the parts have the same
properties as the whole.  Obviously we individuals are not billions of years
old, so why should we be able to reproduce evolution quickly enough to
meet your challenge?

I suppose 100 years ago you might have proclaimed "survival from disease is
the will of god: it is not natural.  Go ahead, try to cure that infection."
Years later when penicillan is discovered, you complain "It's natural, God
created the fungus."  Years later, when synthetic antibiotics are invented,
you complain "That's not the way the body does it."  Ad nauseum.  So even
if we made you a leaf, you wouldn't be convinced.

How then is the test valid?  If we fail the test, it's not necessarily
because things didn't evolve.  And if we pass the test, it's by taking
shortcuts that didn't naturally occur.

I think you want to claim the test is valid merely because it is something
that cannot be done conveniently today.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (11/07/85)

bill@hpfcla writes:
>>> A leaf.  Make me a leaf using all your accepted physical, chemical (and
>>> biological) theories.
>
>Ah, but isn't cloning just tweeking the natural laws that make a leaf,
>and thereby changing its appearance, or duplicating it?  Scientists have NEVER
>created a DNA that builds a perfect leaf. . .
>
>Thus, I think there's some validity to the initial challenge.

So this is a valid point for the next 30 years, and then, when it suddenly can
be done, it becomes invalid? Come on.. you can do a lot better than this paper
thin logic..

-- 
Myke Reynolds
Office of Telecommunications and Networking
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke

"Drawing from my fine command of the english language, I said nothing."