Scientific American Calls For World Government

[palm]

I guess you missed the empathy part of my statement?

I don't use just reason, but empathy and reason.
It works for me, but if someone else needs religion to tell them it's wrong to hurt and kill people then by all means keep I want them to keep praying or whatever it is they do to stop themselves from doing so.

What does empathy consist of ?
Is it an involuntary reflex?
For instance, you would not steal someones car because you do not want yours stolen. That is empathy.
So you come to the conclusion that it is not right to steal someones car, correct?
Empathy though does not automatically lead to justice. It could be my empathetic judgement that I would not want someone to pass up having sex with me even if I don't want it, so I don't pass up having sex with them no matter what. It is an extreme illustration. But my point is that empathy is not morality, but a moral standard of what you should fee bad about creates empathy.

Also, I see where your going.


Is this your line of thought: I use empathy to create morality, I use morality to create a standard of conduct, I use that standard of conduct as a measure of empathy, I use that empathy to create a moral judgement, I use a moral judgement to conduct myself appropriately, I use appropriateness to gauge empathy.

Within that line of thought is an inherent circular thought

Don't want to put up a straw man, so If you could clarify how empathy in and of itself creates a moral standard of right and wrong.

Also, another question how do we determine a natural right?


*can you have empathy without reason?

 

[enjerth]

Why does Government have to exist to settle other planets?

For the same reason that we had to have a big centralized government in England to create the incentive for good people to GTFO and colonize the Americas.

 

[WilliamC]

What does empathy consist of ?
Is it an involuntary reflex?
For instance, you would not steal someones car because you do not want yours stolen. That is empathy.
So you come to the conclusion that it is not right to steal someones car, correct?
Empathy though does not automatically lead to justice. It could be my empathetic judgement that I would not want someone to pass up having sex with me even if I don't want it, so I don't pass up having sex with them no matter what. It is an extreme illustration. But my point is that empathy is not morality, but a moral standard of what you should fee bad about creates empathy.

Also, I see where your going.


Is this your line of thought: I use empathy to create morality, I use morality to create a standard of conduct, I use that standard of conduct as a measure of empathy, I use that empathy to create a moral judgement, I use a moral judgement to conduct myself appropriately, I use appropriateness to gauge empathy.

Within that line of thought is an inherent circular thought

Don't want to put up a straw man, so If you could clarify how empathy in and of itself creates a moral standard of right and wrong.

Also, another question how do we determine a natural right?

*can you have empathy without reason?

All good questions.

For me, I have empathy, I have reason. I also have the subjective experience of my life.

That's enough for me to figure out how I need to behave in most situations I'm likely to every find myself in, and even more that I can speculate upon but which will never happen.

Don't know why it needs to be more complicated than that really.

What are you trying to justify to yourself, exactly?

 

[palm]

All good questions.

For me, I have empathy, I have reason. I also have the subjective experience of my life.

That's enough for me to figure out how I need to behave in most situations I'm likely to every find myself in, and even more that I can speculate upon but which will never happen.

Don't know why it needs to be more complicated than that really.

What are you trying to justify to yourself, exactly?

I know right from wrong like we all do, but I dont attribute that knowledge to anything I have created.



Im not trying to argue, I wont state anything absolutely.


But I do believe in God.

I just picked up on it, I think right and wrong are objective, in a way, but I think it is subjective and based on situation.

Everything is grey, but in all situations of judgement the measure is the same.


Though I'm not sure what it is.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Not me, no, because I chose not to.

Some people just think the universe, including evolution, is all part of gods plan, that's all

I can't prove it isn't.



Then why are people getting paid for it today?

Synthetic biology is already happening, including the creation of synthetic viruses and synthetic cells that are alive. Pretty soon there will be synthetic bacteria churning out biochemicals for industrial or medical use.

Synthetic biology and artificial life is no longer fiction, it's as real as nuclear physics.



Why can't it just be the way god is actually doing it? I can't disprove that.

Perhaps you would know if you ever bothered to read the Bible and go by God's Word instead of trying to make God conform to whatever new experiment we have here. If you ever did read the Bible, you would know.

Now, as for "synthetic life" we have not actually created synthetic life from scratch. It's more like rearranging already complex components of living things to change the way they operate and the way genes are expressed. It's like semi-homemade recipes where they take ready-made products and mix them with a simpler component made from scratch. No life has ever arisen from non-life, in a lab or otherwise. The closest thing we had was the Miller-Urey experiments, and they just created simple amino acids, not life. They also 'forgot' to add oxygen because they knew it would oxidize and destroy anything that was created, but of course, in an early earth atmosphere, oxygen would be present, so the experiment was completely botched. In fact, do you realize the chances of life spontaneously arising?

In order for one simple protein of 100 left-handed amino acids to arise spontaneously, would be the same as flipping 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin. In order to do that, you would have to flip the coin 10^30 times, which is to say, it is literally impossible by any statistical measures. There isn't enough time even in the proposed age of the universe for this to happen even once. That's not even the hard part, either because a protein is not life. Amino acids add another vastly improbable number, as does every step toward a living, functioning, information containing genome within a living cell. Never mind that an average protein is more like 300 amino acids.

I am glad that you want the government to stop funding this type of research. That's why people get paid for it, anyway. It has the possibility of being useful, but no life has actually been created from scratch.

I do, however, disagree that the government is "funding religion". Giving tax-breaks is a good thing, and it is not "funding" because it does not require printing fiat money to loan out at interest. You should be happy that religious organizations aren't getting robbed by the government. We need to make everything like that.

No, I just have to recognize the fact that abiogenesis is the process that life arises from pre-existing complex biochemical processes and systems. If we can do it then obviously it can be done, and we are in fact currently able do so on the scale from molecules to complete viruses and, by using non-living cellular components, make synthetic cells.

Maybe there is something supernatural which will prevent the formation of complex 3 dimensional cells from scratch, but so far there is nothing in the science that indicates so. If you have any suggestions as to how to test for such and those suggestions result in testable hypotheses, then by all means go for it.



We're already doing it here on Earth, but don't take my word for it.

Synthetic biology exists independently of my belief in it.

I just want the government to stop funding it, that's all, just like I want them to stop funding religion through tax-exempt status for churches.

Get the government out of it and what do we have to disagree about, really?

Abiogenesis is life arising from non-life, not "pre-existing complex biochemical processes and systems." Where did those complex biochemical processes and systems come from?

 

[WilliamC]

I know right from wrong like we all do, but I dont attribute that knowledge to anything I have created.

Im not trying to argue, I wont state anything absolutely.

But I do believe in God.

I just picked up on it, I think right and wrong are objective, in a way, but I think it is subjective and based on situation.

Everything is grey, but in all situations of judgement the measure is the same.

Though I'm not sure what it is.

Seems to me we would get along just fine, I don't pretend to know everything either.

But like you I'm sure of my own mind

 

[palm]

Perhaps you would know if you ever bothered to read the Bible and go by God's Word instead of trying to make God conform to whatever new experiment we have here. If you ever did read the Bible, you would know.

Now, as for "synthetic life" we have not actually created synthetic life from scratch. It's more like rearranging already complex components of living things to change the way they operate and the way genes are expressed. It's like semi-homemade recipes where they take ready-made products and mix them with a simpler component made from scratch. No life has ever arisen from non-life, in a lab or otherwise. The closest thing we had was the Miller-Urey experiments, and they just created simple amino acids, not life. They also 'forgot' to add oxygen because they knew it would oxidize and destroy anything that was created, but of course, in an early earth atmosphere, oxygen would be present, so the experiment was completely botched. In fact, do you realize the chances of life spontaneously arising?

In order for one simple protein of 100 left-handed amino acids to arise spontaneously, would be the same as flipping 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin. In order to do that, you would have to flip the coin 10^30 times, which is to say, it is literally impossible by any statistical measures. There isn't enough time even in the proposed age of the universe for this to happen even once. That's not even the hard part, either because a protein is not life. Amino acids add another vastly improbable number, as does every step toward a living, functioning, information containing genome within a living cell. Never mind that an average protein is more like 300 amino acids.

I am glad that you want the government to stop funding this type of research. That's why people get paid for it, anyway. It has the possibility of being useful, but no life has actually been created from scratch.

I do, however, disagree that the government is "funding religion". Giving tax-breaks is a good thing, and it is not "funding" because it does not require printing fiat money to loan out at interest. You should be happy that religious organizations aren't getting robbed by the government. We need to make everything like that.

No, I just have to recognize the fact that abiogenesis is the process that life arises from pre-existing complex biochemical processes and systems. If we can do it then obviously it can be done, and we are in fact currently able do so on the scale from molecules to complete viruses and, by using non-living cellular components, make synthetic cells.

Maybe there is something supernatural which will prevent the formation of complex 3 dimensional cells from scratch, but so far there is nothing in the science that indicates so. If you have any suggestions as to how to test for such and those suggestions result in testable hypotheses, then by all means go for it.



We're already doing it here on Earth, but don't take my word for it.

Synthetic biology exists independently of my belief in it.

I just want the government to stop funding it, that's all, just like I want them to stop funding religion through tax-exempt status for churches.

Get the government out of it and what do we have to disagree about, really?

[/QUOTE]

Hey man, good stuff.

Can you pm me some of you resources?

 

[WilliamC]

Perhaps you would know if you ever bothered to read the Bible and go by God's Word instead of trying to make God conform to whatever new experiment we have here. If you ever did read the Bible, you would know.

And therein lies your fault.

Why do you even presume to think I have not read the bible?

Paul, I just don't believe like you do, that's all. I'm not better or worse or anything else, just different.

As long as you are willing to live and let live in the tradition of Ron Paul and his crazy ideas about individual sovereignty and control over ones own life I am not threatened by you or your god.

I merely do not care.

As for the rest don't take my word for it since the information is available to anyone curious enough to learn. if you want to claim synthetic biology is a hoax like evolution go right ahead, you aren't harming me by your lack of belief.

Indeed, I don't even want to use taxpayer money to 'force' my belief on you and as long as you grant me the same consideration and not want to use taxpayer money to prevent me from having them.

As for the rest of your post it's about 60 years out of date.

Times change, technology moves forward, and low and behold humans are creating life from non-living components even as we speak, just like we are splitting the atom to generate energy and breaking the bonds of gravity to expand into outer space.

It's not science fiction anymore, and the internet lets anyone who is curious learn about how to do it themselves.

And there are plenty of religious folks who call themselves Christians that have no problem accepting that science and faith need not be at odds.

But hey, your life, your choice.

Now, as for "synthetic life" we have not actually created synthetic life from scratch. It's more like rearranging already complex components of living things to change the way they operate and the way genes are expressed. It's like semi-homemade recipes where they take ready-made products and mix them with a simpler component made from scratch. No life has ever arisen from non-life, in a lab or otherwise. The closest thing we had was the Miller-Urey experiments, and they just created simple amino acids, not life. They also 'forgot' to add oxygen because they knew it would oxidize and destroy anything that was created, but of course, in an early earth atmosphere, oxygen would be present, so the experiment was completely botched. In fact, do you realize the chances of life spontaneously arising?

In order for one simple protein of 100 left-handed amino acids to arise spontaneously, would be the same as flipping 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin. In order to do that, you would have to flip the coin 10^30 times, which is to say, it is literally impossible by any statistical measures. There isn't enough time even in the proposed age of the universe for this to happen even once. That's not even the hard part, either because a protein is not life. Amino acids add another vastly improbable number, as does every step toward a living, functioning, information containing genome within a living cell. Never mind that an average protein is more like 300 amino acids.

I am glad that you want the government to stop funding this type of research. That's why people get paid for it, anyway. It has the possibility of being useful, but no life has actually been created from scratch.

I do, however, disagree that the government is "funding religion". Giving tax-breaks is a good thing, and it is not "funding" because it does not require printing fiat money to loan out at interest. You should be happy that religious organizations aren't getting robbed by the government. We need to make everything like that.

No, I just have to recognize the fact that abiogenesis is the process that life arises from pre-existing complex biochemical processes and systems. If we can do it then obviously it can be done, and we are in fact currently able do so on the scale from molecules to complete viruses and, by using non-living cellular components, make synthetic cells.

Maybe there is something supernatural which will prevent the formation of complex 3 dimensional cells from scratch, but so far there is nothing in the science that indicates so. If you have any suggestions as to how to test for such and those suggestions result in testable hypotheses, then by all means go for it.



We're already doing it here on Earth, but don't take my word for it.

Synthetic biology exists independently of my belief in it.

I just want the government to stop funding it, that's all, just like I want them to stop funding religion through tax-exempt status for churches.

Get the government out of it and what do we have to disagree about, really?

[/QUOTE]

 

[The Free Hornet]

Greed and Avarice are indeed synonyms.

They are different words with similar meanings (synonym: "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another"). There is a specific distinction being made here. Consider two people:

Bill: Made his fortune robbing banks.
Bob: Made his fortune selling furniture.

Both Bill and Bob value and desire material possessions and wealth equally. Both would be equally offended as you cart off their 3D HDTV. However, one of these people earned their possessions honestly, the other did not. I am making a distinction between the two. You are not. You are equating the two and suggest they are synonymous? If you have a word that describes Bob, please share it. Perhaps you think they both are equally guilty in regards to the deadly sin "avaritia". Again, their desires are equal, their methods are not.

"In Ayn Rand's context" holds zero sway with me.

It is not intended to hold sway. The purpose is for effective communication so that you get my meaning, not so that you agree with me. Get a grip.

I not only disregard idiosyncratic definitions, I dismiss the people who assert them.

Do you wash your mouth after kissing MSM ass? Controlling the language is vital to controlling people. This is how you marginalize "greedy" corporations and their excessive profits. This is why Ron Paul is described as a libertarian (true, but not as accurate as calling him a Republican in this context) in the same context that does not mention that Romney is a Mormon, Santorum a Catholic, and Gingrich an adulterer (all true). They are using language and people's improper understanding of that language to conveny the notion that Ron Paul is a fringe candidate unlikely to win.

There are a great many people who are not properly described by the MSM definition of a word. These include atheists, libertarians, and anarchists. It likely also applies to other groups like socialists and communists who do not consider Obama or Pelosi one of their own (because their definition is what you would call "idiosyncratic").

Also, did you know your use of the word "idiosyncratic" is idiosyncratic?

id·i·o·syn·crat·ic    [id-ee-oh-sin-krat-ik, -sing-] adjective
pertaining to the nature of idiosyncrasy, or something peculiar to an individual: The best minds are idiosyncratic and unpredictable as they follow the course of scientific discovery.

My use of "greed" is not idosyncratic according to the dictionary. It may only pertain to a small percent of the population but that is not relevant because you know I am not alone in this (at a minimum, you know of Ayn Rand who doesn't post here). I have often been in a minority as I have held libertarian views for decades and been an atheist as well. I understand how the MSM and commoners like yourself* abuse language and I don't expect you to agree with me. Effective communication requires that words have specific meanings to describe concepts. There is no reason to invent new words in place of the perfectly croumlent ones we already have.

* You clearly want no association with minority groups who may use words that the majority either doesn't understand or agree with.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I not only disregard idiosyncratic definitions, I dismiss the people who assert them.

Also, did you know your use of the word "idiosyncratic" is idiosyncratic?

If you don't have a reply to this, I'll just assume you disappeared in a puff of logic.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

LOL. I like it when people accuse me of arrogance for thinking humans are supposed to be special. As if it were a travesty to say we weren't just another drop in an infinite pond. As if it were a bad thing to actually suggest we are here for a purpose. Like I said before, I am not being ignorant. The idea that there is DEFINITELY life out there on other planets rests on the assumption that abiogenesis happened here (something that was disproven by Louis Pasteur) so it MUST have happened on other planets. If anything, it is arrogant and ignorant to suggest that you somehow know this without even the slightest evidence even though scientists throughout history have found to the contrary of the idea that life can spontaneously arise.

The universe is a rather large place. I don't understand how you can be so sure we are the only ones. And no evidence? Ok you're not ignorant, you just dismiss what you don't agree with.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

LOL. I like it when people accuse me of arrogance for thinking humans are supposed to be special. As if it were a travesty to say we weren't just another drop in an infinite pond. As if it were a bad thing to actually suggest we are here for a purpose. Like I said before, I am not being ignorant. The idea that there is DEFINITELY life out there on other planets rests on the assumption that abiogenesis happened here (something that was disproven by Louis Pasteur) so it MUST have happened on other planets. If anything, it is arrogant and ignorant to suggest that you somehow know this without even the slightest evidence even though scientists throughout history have found to the contrary of the idea that life can spontaneously arise.

Because it is true.

 

[cheapseats]

They are different words with similar meanings (synonym: "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another"). There is a specific distinction being made here. Consider two people:

No.

The purpose is for effective communication so that you get my meaning . . .

And I am saying that IDIOSYNCRATIC definitions are counterproductive to that purpose, also that Greed is UNAMBIGUOUSLY BAD.

Get a grip.

Right back atcha.

Do you wash your mouth after kissing MSM ass?

I have a Tweet count of closer to 40,000 than 30,000, a body of work that sez you are ridiculous unto hurling YOUR MOTHER WEARS ARMY BOOTS when challenged or flustered.

Controlling the language is vital to controlling people. This is how you marginalize "greedy" corporations and their excessive profits. This is why Ron Paul is described as a libertarian (true, but not as accurate as calling him a Republican in this context) in the same context that does not mention that Romney is a Mormon, Santorum a Catholic, and Gingrich an adulterer (all true). They are using language and people's improper understanding of that language to conveny the notion that Ron Paul is a fringe candidate unlikely to win.

There are a great many people who are not properly described by the MSM definition of a word. These include atheists, libertarians, and anarchists. It likely also applies to other groups like socialists and communists who do not consider Obama or Pelosi one of their own (because their definition is what you would call "idiosyncratic").

The more reason not to float IDIOSYNCRATIC definitions.

Also, did you know your use of the word "idiosyncratic" is idiosyncratic?

My use of "greed" is not idosyncratic according to the dictionary. It may only pertain to a small percent of the population but that is not relevant because you know I am not alone in this (at a minimum, you know of Ayn Rand who doesn't post here). I have often been in a minority as I have held libertarian views for decades and been an atheist as well. I understand how the MSM and commoners like yourself* abuse language and I don't expect you to agree with me. Effective communication requires that words have specific meanings to describe concepts. There is no reason to invent new words in place of the perfectly croumlent ones we already have.

Yeah, THE INDIVIDUAL from whom you derive an IDIOSYNCRATIC definition of Greed.

* You clearly want no association with minority groups who may use words that the majority either doesn't understand or agree with.

I think we can leave CLEAR outta this.

For the last time in this thread, I reiterate my warning that GREED will be an issue in the General Election and that attempt to pimp the RIGHT KIND of Greed will only alienate Potential Votes. The LIBERTINES who believe Greed is good are ALREADY on board.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Perhaps you would know if you ever bothered to read the Bible and go by God's Word instead of trying to make God conform to whatever new experiment we have here. If you ever did read the Bible, you would know.

Now, as for "synthetic life" we have not actually created synthetic life from scratch. It's more like rearranging already complex components of living things to change the way they operate and the way genes are expressed. It's like semi-homemade recipes where they take ready-made products and mix them with a simpler component made from scratch. No life has ever arisen from non-life, in a lab or otherwise. The closest thing we had was the Miller-Urey experiments, and they just created simple amino acids, not life. They also 'forgot' to add oxygen because they knew it would oxidize and destroy anything that was created, but of course, in an early earth atmosphere, oxygen would be present, so the experiment was completely botched. In fact, do you realize the chances of life spontaneously arising?

In order for one simple protein of 100 left-handed amino acids to arise spontaneously, would be the same as flipping 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin. In order to do that, you would have to flip the coin 10^30 times, which is to say, it is literally impossible by any statistical measures. There isn't enough time even in the proposed age of the universe for this to happen even once. That's not even the hard part, either because a protein is not life. Amino acids add another vastly improbable number, as does every step toward a living, functioning, information containing genome within a living cell. Never mind that an average protein is more like 300 amino acids.

I am glad that you want the government to stop funding this type of research. That's why people get paid for it, anyway. It has the possibility of being useful, but no life has actually been created from scratch.

I do, however, disagree that the government is "funding religion". Giving tax-breaks is a good thing, and it is not "funding" because it does not require printing fiat money to loan out at interest. You should be happy that religious organizations aren't getting robbed by the government. We need to make everything like that.



Abiogenesis is life arising from non-life, not "pre-existing complex biochemical processes and systems." Where did those complex biochemical processes and systems come from?

Wait. You are making the assumption that a book written by human beings is actually the work of some higher being....that nobody can prove exists. For the record, I believe in God. But I prefer to deal in facts and logic. I don't take my faith and try and say it is fact. You believe in God? Awesome.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

And therein lies your fault.

Why do you even presume to think I have not read the bible?

Paul, I just don't believe like you do, that's all. I'm not better or worse or anything else, just different.

As long as you are willing to live and let live in the tradition of Ron Paul and his crazy ideas about individual sovereignty and control over ones own life I am not threatened by you or your god.

I merely do not care.

As for the rest don't take my word for it since the information is available to anyone curious enough to learn. if you want to claim synthetic biology is a hoax like evolution go right ahead, you aren't harming me by your lack of belief.

Indeed, I don't even want to use taxpayer money to 'force' my belief on you and as long as you grant me the same consideration and not want to use taxpayer money to prevent me from having them.

As for the rest of your post it's about 60 years out of date.

Times change, technology moves forward, and low and behold humans are creating life from non-living components even as we speak, just like we are splitting the atom to generate energy and breaking the bonds of gravity to expand into outer space.

It's not science fiction anymore, and the internet lets anyone who is curious learn about how to do it themselves.

And there are plenty of religious folks who call themselves Christians that have no problem accepting that science and faith need not be at odds.

But hey, your life, your choice.

[/QUOTE]

Of course, people can interpret the Bible the way they want, which is a shame, but I was simply pointing out that a true interpretation would yield the belief that God did not use evolution as some sort of proxy creator.

Also, I never implied that synthetic biology was a hoax. I was talking about life from non-life and you skirted around the issue so I defined your terms for you and called your bluff.

However, you seem intent on continuing to skirt around the issue. You never answered my post with actual facts so you passively-aggressively tell me that I am wrong and that life from non-life is happening. I provided my evidence and you did not. What's more, the evidence I provided is true regardless of the time period we are speaking about. It doesn't matter if it's 60 years out of date or 60 years ahead of its time. Life cannot come from non-life based on simple mathematical probabilities.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The universe is a rather large place. I don't understand how you can be so sure we are the only ones. And no evidence? Ok you're not ignorant, you just dismiss what you don't agree with.

That's pretty much the definition of ignorant, but I'm not that either. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that the universe is a large place. It doesn't make it any more true that life is able to evolve from non-life. It doesn't matter what the sample-size is in the context of life developing from non-life. It is simply impossible.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Because it is true.

What is true? Can you use a little more logic in your post and a little less dogma? Thanks.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Wait. You are making the assumption that a book written by human beings is actually the work of some higher being....that nobody can prove exists. For the record, I believe in God. But I prefer to deal in facts and logic. I don't take my faith and try and say it is fact. You believe in God? Awesome.

No, I was simply referencing the Bible to show how evolution is incompatible with Christianity, not to disprove evolution.

Also, if you want to deal with facts and logic, take a look at this debate series, starting with part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pvRv3mwkV0

 

[WilliamC]

Of course, people can interpret the Bible the way they want, which is a shame, but I was simply pointing out that a true interpretation would yield the belief that God did not use evolution as some sort of proxy creator.

Ah, so there is the possibility that merely reading the bible doesn't lead one to disbelieve evolution?

Yes, it is subject to individual interpretation just like any other set of beliefs.

Also, I never implied that synthetic biology was a hoax. I was talking about life from non-life and you skirted around the issue so I defined your terms for you and called your bluff.

You aren't even asking questions which lead me to believe you understand what synthetic biology is.

However, you seem intent on continuing to skirt around the issue. You never answered my post with actual facts so you passively-aggressively tell me that I am wrong and that life from non-life is happening. I provided my evidence and you did not. What's more, the evidence I provided is true regardless of the time period we are speaking about. It doesn't matter if it's 60 years out of date or 60 years ahead of its time. Life cannot come from non-life based on simple mathematical probabilities.

Skirting? No, just pointing out the fact that we already are creating artificial life.

You do realize that the premise you are supporting actually is vitalism and started back in the 1800's with the advent of chemistry and the (incorrect) hypothesis that there was a supernatural distinction between organic and inorganic compounds? And that there were those who honestly believed that humans could never synthesize organic molecules since they were the sole purview of life and therefore out-of-bounds for scientific understanding?

This was disproven in 1828 when humans synthesized the first organic compound, urea, from inorganic precursors.

The evidence against vitalism has only increased over the decades until today we actually synthesize entire bacterial genomes, organelles, and even fully functional intact viruses from inorganic precursors.

Seems like there's nothing supernatural about life after all, at least bacteria and viruses, but maybe there is something supernatural which will prevent further progress in this area eh?

Just like nuclear power, artificial life is a reality today.

 

[WilliamC]

And another piece of the puzzle falls into place...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-of-habitable-planets-found-in-Milky-Way.html

New 'life in space' hope after billions of 'habitable planets' found in Milky Way
Billions of potentially habitable planets may exist within our galaxy, the Milky Way, raising new prospects that life could exist near Earth, a study has found.

Researchers discovered that at least 100 of the ''super-Earths'' may be on our galactic doorstep, at distances of less than 30 light years, or about 180 trillion miles, from the sun.

Astronomers say the findings were made after conducting a survey of red dwarf stars, which account for about four in five stars in the Milky Way.

They calculate that around 40 per cent of red dwarfs have a rocky planet not much bigger than Earth orbiting the ''habitable zone'', in which liquid surface water can exist.

Scientists say that where there is water, there also could be life although they add that being in the habitable zone is no guarantee that life has evolved on a planet.

Dr Xavier Bonfils, from Grenoble University in France, who led the international team, said: ''Because red dwarfs are so common - there are about 160 billion of them in the Milky Way - this leads us to the astonishing result that there are tens of billions of these planets in our galaxy alone.''

Damn, just when I thought I was getting a handle on exo-solar systems they go dump another few billion possibilities in my lap.

I've got lot's of reading to catch up on, I'm out-of-date!