[Ghostavo]

engineer a new type of bacteria that has biochemistry totally different from all other life on the planet and have it derive it's energy from splitting water molecules into free hydrogen but fixing the oxygen to carbon. basically it would eat the ocean, and the water in all living things, and nothing would have any defense against it, the immune system wouldn't even recognize it as alive.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of the immune system simply getting rid of it. It is, after all, notoriously aggressive, just check the amount of allergies available.

[headdie]

engineer a new type of bacteria that has biochemistry totally different from all other life on the planet and have it derive it's energy from splitting water molecules into free hydrogen but fixing the oxygen to carbon. basically it would eat the ocean, and the water in all living things, and nothing would have any defense against it, the immune system wouldn't even recognize it as alive.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of the immune system simply getting rid of it. It is, after all, notoriously aggressive, just check the amount of allergies available.

aggressive but stupid, allegens and the number of things it misses such as viruses using protein "disguises" are proof of that

[Kosh]

The Atom Bomb (or rather, Nuclear theory) bought us Nuclear Power, it also bought us Hiroshima, the Cold War, the current problems with Iran and North Korea etc, the fear of 'dirty bomb' terrorism etc.

That doesn't make Nuclear theory a 'bad' thing to have, I'd be the first to agree, theories are neither good nor bad, what makes them good or bad is the people whose hands that knowledge gets into. After all, one day, an innocent scientist may find a way to detect and erase the possibility of homosexuality in unborn humans, there are those who would leap on that opportunity, claiming it is a 'cure' for it, but that could be like knocking over the first domino in a terrible chain, we don't know the outcomes of all our actions.

I'm not, in any stretch of the word, saying that this is a 'bad' idea, and I fully support it continuing, but we have to bear in mind the fact that the science may be infallible, but the people using it cannot be gauranteed to be so.

Edit: Physical alterations, such as Battuta recommended are actually less of a problem in my eyes, but even those would, obviously, have to be approached with great care.

The Cold War would have happened regardless of The Bomb, and it was nuclear weapons that is largely credited with staving off world war 3.

[Scotty]

The Atom Bomb (or rather, Nuclear theory) bought us Nuclear Power, it also bought us Hiroshima, the Cold War, the current problems with Iran and North Korea etc, the fear of 'dirty bomb' terrorism etc.

That doesn't make Nuclear theory a 'bad' thing to have, I'd be the first to agree, theories are neither good nor bad, what makes them good or bad is the people whose hands that knowledge gets into. After all, one day, an innocent scientist may find a way to detect and erase the possibility of homosexuality in unborn humans, there are those who would leap on that opportunity, claiming it is a 'cure' for it, but that could be like knocking over the first domino in a terrible chain, we don't know the outcomes of all our actions.

I'm not, in any stretch of the word, saying that this is a 'bad' idea, and I fully support it continuing, but we have to bear in mind the fact that the science may be infallible, but the people using it cannot be gauranteed to be so.

Edit: Physical alterations, such as Battuta recommended are actually less of a problem in my eyes, but even those would, obviously, have to be approached with great care.

The Cold War would have happened regardless of The Bomb, and it was nuclear weapons that is largely credited with staving off world war 3.

^{[Citation Needed]}

The Bomb and its unveiling led directly to Soviet attempts to replicate the weapon.  The resulting pissing contest commonly called the Cold War came about because both had The Bomb.  If we'd never unveiled it as a weapon, there's a very real possibility the Cold War wouldn't have happened to near the extent that it did.  Nevermind that Soviet and American troops would have met again on the Japanese islands at some point, which (granted, not certain by a long shot) might have resulted in closer relations between the USSR and America.

[Kosh]

Stalin had long wanted to conquer Europe, that alone ensured it was inevitable, perhaps not with a bombs but with all the other conventional weapons.

[watsisname]

Indeed, most of the discoveries from the forefronts of physics and chemistry imply that there is more than random convergence going on in the universe.

Like what?

Yes, examples, please.

[General Battuta]

There aren't any. Liberator is not aware of the forefront of either physics or chemistry in anything but the crudest sense.

Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.

[iamzack]

**** you im a dinosaur

[Mongoose]

I thought you were a Zack?

[Bobboau]

who said she couldn't be both

[sigtau]

Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.

The poster of this reply is creationist.

The person being quoted is, in my eyes, the most correct.

Besides, all they did was create synthetic DNA and put it in a host cell.  They didn't actually *create* the life, in that sense--however, in the sense that the resulting product wasn't natural, they did create life.

[General Battuta]

Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.

The poster of this reply is creationist.

The person being quoted is, in my eyes, the most correct.

Besides, all they did was create synthetic DNA and put it in a host cell.  They didn't actually *create* the life, in that sense--however, in the sense that the resulting product wasn't natural, they did create life.

Are you a Young Earth creationist?

Because science does explicitly contradict that viewpoint.

Life was created by abiogenesis. If you believe in a tooth fairy or other magical being, it could have helped catalyze this abiogenesis, but the process occurred in a manner agnostic to outside interference.

[Kosh]

There aren't any. Liberator is not aware of the forefront of either physics or chemistry in anything but the crudest sense.

Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.

While some may see it that way, the problem historically is that religion often has had an imperialist streak in it that has made it lash out and want to constrain science. What happened with Galileo was a good example, and what's happening today in the US with the whole creationism in biology classroms thing, as well as the near total lack of scientific participation in the islamic world are two more recent examples of it.

[Scotty]

There aren't any. Liberator is not aware of the forefront of either physics or chemistry in anything but the crudest sense.

Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.

While some may see it that way, the problem historically is that religion often has had an imperialist streak in it that has made it lash out and want to constrain science. What happened with Galileo was a good example, and what's happening today in the US with the whole creationism in biology classroms thing, as well as the near total lack of scientific participation in the islamic world are two more recent examples of it.

I'd argue that this is not religion shunning scientific advancement/whathaveyou, but political movements that use the power of a religious basis to try and more effectively carry out their means.  The Church in Galileo's time was certainly more of a political body than a religious organization at many points.  The same thing happens with your latter two examples.  Political bodies use religion as a tool to reach more voters/supporters.

Religion has no imperialist streak, because it's a concept, not a person.  People who use religion for their own ends do have imperialist streaks, empirically proven.

[General Battuta]

There aren't any. Liberator is not aware of the forefront of either physics or chemistry in anything but the crudest sense.

Now, the sciences are not incompatible with religion...but they say absolutely nothing about the probability of an omnipotent creator, one way or another. Nothing for, nothing against.

While some may see it that way, the problem historically is that religion often has had an imperialist streak in it that has made it lash out and want to constrain science. What happened with Galileo was a good example, and what's happening today in the US with the whole creationism in biology classroms thing, as well as the near total lack of scientific participation in the islamic world are two more recent examples of it.

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

I made a statement about the compatibility of science with religion, and what science says about religious matters. I said nothing about the compatibility of religion with science, neither ideological nor historical.

Taking the time to read posts and figure out what they're actually saying will save you the embarrassment of going off like a virgin on his first ****.  

[BloodEagle]

Taking the time to read posts and figure out what they're actually saying will save you the embarrassment of going off like a virgin on his first ****.  

Quoted for posterity.

[Qent]

Isn't compatibility symmetric?

[General Battuta]

Isn't compatibility symmetric?

A good question! But, in this case, no. We're not talking about mutual compatibility here.

The reason is that science is totally agnostic on the broad topics of religion, namely the existence of omnipotent beings or beings. While it may specifically contradict some tenets of a given faith, science will never claim to provide evidence about non-testable, non-empirical phenomena like the existence or nonexistence of God. It's compatible with religions because it says nothing about their core beliefs.

A religion, however, might turn around and simply dictate that empirical investigation of some phenomenon (human cloning) is wrong and evil, by dictate of the Creator. And science will shrug and say 'okay, whatever, you could be right' - because if an omnipotent being did exist and did speak to the members of a certain faith with this message, science has nothing to say about it. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to test the existence of an omnipotent being or to measure its interference in the world.

With luck, however, the scientists in question would ignore the religious people delivering this message, since they have no particular evidence for their hypothesis and never will.

Think of it as matchmaking. If you have one guy who's incredibly open and tolerant to anyone else, and, in his heartbreaking wisdom, sees the inner beauty in everyone, he's compatible with almost any partner, including a mean-spirited, bitter, ornery one. But said partner may not be reciprocally compatible with him because this second partner is jealous, controlling and vile - so mutual compatibility can't be established.

It's a fair semantic point, though, and it may come down to the question of interpretation. I'm more interested, however, in kicking Kosh out of his 'believer' mindset. He's a religious guy, but his religion happens to be atheism - he believes in it the same way Liberator believes in God. Hopefully he can be taught to practice what he preaches by backing up his beliefs with data and self-criticism.

And on that note:

as well as the near total lack of scientific participation in the islamic world are two more recent examples of it.

Kosh, if you want to use this as an example of religion interfering with science, you need to think about it harder.

Take a Google search or two to figure out why Islam can't be the primary factor here. As a hint, start with a review of Islamic history.

When you're done I have a paper for you to read that will help you develop your views on this topic. It's not that you're absolutely wrong, but your thesis that 'religion always impairs science' is insensitive to the actual factors at work. You need to introduce additional variables to control the relationship.

[Sushi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

Very interesting stuff indeed, the opportunities are incredible, as are the risks, particularly in medical applications, but all in all, I consider it a positive step.

This is likely to be quite a divisive topic, so I'll say at the start, let's keep it polite

Well, we know how this movie ends.

Or is it this one?

Either way, it may be time to invest in a good shotgun and/or cricket bat. That and some pain meds... pills here!


I think it's amusing how many different apocalyptic scenarios begin just like this. Otherwise, good luck to the scientists working on this, and try not to let the media coverage kill your work with hyperbole.

[Kosh]

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

I made a statement about the compatibility of science with religion, and what science says about religious matters. I said nothing about the compatibility of religion with science, neither ideological nor historical.

Taking the time to read posts and figure out what they're actually saying will save you the embarrassment of going off like a virgin on his first ****.  

Learn how to ****ing read. What I said was related to your post in that historically religion has often tried to suppress scientific achievement.

And BTW, since you have a history of not understanding even basic things that I've said, I'd suggest you take up some lessons on the subject.

When you're done I have a paper for you to read that will help you develop your views on this topic. It's not that you're absolutely wrong, but your thesis that 'religion always impairs science' is insensitive to the actual factors at work. You need to introduce additional variables to control the relationship.

I don't recall saying "always".

And I am very much aware of the history of Islam, I know full well that for a while at the beginning it was very open to science, but then it was decided by some imams (I don't recall the faction off hand) that pursuit of scientific knowledge was no longer important, and ultimately it fell to the same sort of fundementalism that plagued the christian nations during the dark age with very similair results.

I'll tell you what, I found a paper written by the chairman of the physics department of a university in pakistan (so he's pretty much at the center of the ****storm) about this subject. Care to trade?