In translation, we've created life I believe.


I don't like to define God as something that creates life though.

Still really interesting news.

Keep up the good work, humanity. This is possibly the best thing since the glow in the dark monkey. When do those things go to market?

What would be interesting is if they did away with the cell part and just simulated that on the computer (with their already in-place computer DNA strand). Then fast-forward a few billion generations and maybe we'll have a virtual world in there!

The words "expected" and "capable" kinda ruin it for me. I want to see some results before I form an opinion.

Tom wrote:
What would be interesting is if they did away with the cell part and just simulated that on the computer (with their already in-place computer DNA strand). Then fast-forward a few billion generations and maybe we'll have a virtual world in there!

Would at worst be an @home distributed project of indescribable proportion and length. 10^40 FLOPS at least...

Bootyboy wrote:

You have just written the single most intellectually dishonest statement ever written in your entire life.

I believe Fugsnarf wasn't being dishonest, but simply misunderstood the statement in bold. If I'm reading it correctly, it should be understood as:
"The new cells have the characteristics we expected them to develop as a result of the DNA that was written, and they are reproducing without problem, such that we can expect them to continue to reproduce into the indeterminate future."

The way the statement is currently written could very easily result in the average person reading it incorrectly.

Just think, when/if this does happen completely... Those science textbooks will need updated, more for future generations to study about.

And when I was young, I thought I had it bad.
Our rapid growth in technology, biology and medicinal progress amaze me a bit.

We've gone from big boxes with millions of buttons to flat screen panels that are touch-screen.
Curing and relieving many illnesses that were very problematic 20 - 40 years ago.
We can stand on one side of the planet and talk in real-time with audio and video to someone else on the opposite side with crystal clear video and great audio.
Robotic machinery that is capable of doing hundreds of peoples' jobs in a few hours and even minutes.

Imagine taking this stuff we have today, and going back just even 25 years ago.

Fugsnarf wrote:
Thanks for being a complete dick as always, Bootyboy.

You are probably one of the biggest religious ignoramuses on BYOND. I'm doing you a service -- when I point out how incredibly ignorant, misinformed, presumptuous, and "truthy" you are, it's your choice whether to make yourself smarter.

At least there are some decent and understanding people on this community like Iain. As far as I'm concerned, this is a great achievement, and I did misread the statement in bold.

Don't be a moron. My comment had nothing to do with you misreading.

You are a self proclaimed Christian. Hence you believe in something that has zero proof attached to it. Yet you make the statement: I want to see some results before I form an opinion. Belief in God requires this.

It's just hilarious that in the process of making such a dishonest statement that you would present a "misread" snippet. I provided a link to the whole report -- you could have done the intellectual due diligence and read it. Yet, in your mind, wanted desperately to find ways to invalidate it, so you glibly misread. Then, as a deeply religious individual, you cap it with that laughable statement of ultimate intellectual dishonesty.

I don't know why I even bother commenting here though because anything I say will inevitably be completely picked apart by you, Bootyboy, or the others here like you, without any thought as to why I might be saying what I'm saying and simply assuming I must be an idiot.

I'm not assuming anything. You wrote something that is as close to as the extreme in terms of intellectual dishonesty.

Write something that *actually* makes sense, perhaps something like:

"Wow, I guess God doesn't exist because I want to see some results before I form an opinion."

Again, BYOND is honored to have such an esteemed level of ignorance grace its pages. You and others like you offer a sharp contrast in which people can formulate and understand their own positions.

Create matter.

Fugsnarf wrote:
I find it interesting that you call it dishonesty.

It's intellectual dishonesty. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether it's interesting to you or not is irrelevant. It's whether you choose to remedy your dishonesty that should be on your agenda.

Just because I say something, you automatically become cynical of it because I'm a conservative Christian.

I say it because you are being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't matter if you are a Zoroaster, a monkey, a professor, or Buddhist monk.

If you think that _because_ you are a "conservative Christian" that you exhibit this intellectual dishonesty, well, perhaps the solution is not to be one.

I'm not discrediting the fact that this is an amazing achievement by a long shot, or that it was done.

To quote you: "The words "expected" and "capable" kinda ruin it for me. I want to see some results before I form an opinion.' You absolutely attempted to discredit the achievement.

I have nothing aginst you personally, Bootyboy. However, you clearly have something aginst me.

I have "something against" behaviors. You are exhibiting such behavior... unfortunately, it's chronic. You _know_ I always give you a fair shake and ample opportunity to offer well thought out opinions. I'm still working on my "lulz"-meter for those who are just being sarcastic. But your comments are chronically misinformed and presumptuous, and not done in a "lulz" manner.

Grow up a little bit and realize that not everybody thinks the way you do.

I already know that. Only a fool would believe that everyone thinks exactly the same way or believes anyone else thinks on such a simplistic manner.

Let's take you for instance... you write: "I want to see some results before I form an opinion." after reading a relatively well written scientific article. And in the same brain of yours, you believe in God. These two thoughts are inconsistent -- the rational person understands this. You have a choice: you can resolve the ambiguity by either 1) not want to see results before you form an opinion, or 2) God does not exist until you see results.

Until you do, you are either: 1) suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, or 2) a pathological liar.