ARTIFICIAL LIFE WARBLGARBLE!!!

Okay, Ive been trying to figure out what I can add to the OMFGTHEYMADEABACTERIAFROMSCRATCH hysteria. I cant come up with much more than ‘WARBLEGARBLE!!!!!!!’, but luckily, many others in the blagosphere didnt totally lose their heads and have some great posts up (leave links to your favorites in the comments, I missed some, I know).

I just think its funny that a week ago I was bitching about how this group didnt explain how they synthesized their artificial genes (a few hundred nucleotides for each HIV-1 gene), cause it is really hard to go from “DNA sequence on a computer” to “DNA sequence in real life”, and then Venters like “Yeah, we made a genome thats about a million base pairs. heh.”

… OMFGWARBLEGARBLE!!!!

But this finding has raised up some old emotions in me:

Craig Venter: Figured out a faster, better, universally accepted/applied sequencing method, left the human genome project because of King Collins. Vilified by jealous loser scientists and ‘science journalists’ alike, cause hes ‘mean’ or ‘arrogant’ or something, which means as much in science as his favorite brand of pop. Travels round the world (and round your body) sequencing everything he can get his hands on. Sequenced the first complete human genome. Figured out how to make artificial creatures that run on man-made DNA.

Francis Collins: The ‘Good Guy’ of the human genome project. A ‘rock star’ in science. Scientific accomplishments include finding some disease genes, and patenting them (didnt cure/treat them, nor have they been cured/treated 20 years later). Got appointed as head of the human genome project after James Watson is forced out for opposing patents. Keeps getting appointed to political positions. Makes stupid websites and writes stupid books.

Makes the ‘battle’ between Venter/Collins at the turn of the century kinda funny, now. There is no comparing these two men, certainly not as scientists, but people will have them paired up in their brains for decades.

Man. Craig Venter and the teams working for him are innovative, awesome mother fuckers. Thats all I got to say.

Comments

  1. #1 Paul C
    June 8, 2010

    Paul C, rape falls under sex outside of marriage, and sexual immorality is condemned all over the place.

    How can rape fall under sex outside of marriage when it is possible to rape somebody you are married to?

  2. #2 Joe
    June 8, 2010

    If Rho says that you can’t rape your wife, then he contradicts himself, because earlier, he clearly stated that rape was sex “under duress”. There were no exceptions for marriage.

    Obviously, even an married woman can be forced by her husband to have sex “under duress”. Married woman can be raped by their husbands, so saying that “rape falls under sex outside of marriage” isn’t going to take into account or condemn

  3. #3 Joe
    June 8, 2010

    Ooops, last bit was cut off.

    Married woman can be raped by their husbands, so saying that “rape falls under sex outside of marriage” isn’t going to take into account or condemn…all cases of rape. Wife rape is still ok.

    Rho: Ta, ta.

    Joe: Promises, promises.

  4. #4 Tommykey
    June 8, 2010

    Ooops, last bit was cut off.

    Which, of course, is the response of some wives when they are raped by their husbands. The Lorena Bobbitt method!

  5. #5 Prometheus
    June 8, 2010

    If the function of an internal critique is to confront the inherently contradictory elements of the naturalist unbeliever’s worldview in order to lead him to enlightenment through a process of introducing evangelical truisms as those contradictions(stated in his own terms) create successive vacuums….aren’t you failing here?

    Isn’t the origin of your failure your pride?

    Can you be qualified to conduct an internal critique without humility and therefore clothed in sin?

    It is certainly the case that those who you would try to lead through the internal critique of their naturalistic world view, as an evangelical mandate, are under no obligation to respect or even refrain from ridicule. You however are not entitled to, nor can you lead others to truth by such means.

    At what point in an internal critique is it appropriate for an evangelical Christian to be snide, self congratulatory, accusatory or make dictatorial demands?

    This is the patent antithesis of a Christian’s God given obligations to all proselytes.

    I can say that your incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule has hardened my heart and placed stones within my soul to speed my descent to perdition.

    To what extent are you prepared to hold yourself responsible for souls lost because your self love and affectations have stood between the unsaved and a more worthy advocate for Christ’s salvation.

    A proper admonition to a tent maker such as yourself might be “every man to your tents, O Israel: and now, David, see to thine own house. So all Israel went to their tents.”

    P.S. Don’t panic. When you get to hell, look me up. I’ll be in middle management. We can drop by the Second Circle for Pomegranate Daiquiris with Cleopatra VII and Billie Holiday. I’ll bring the Tortuga rum and Chesterfield Kings (they satisfy).

  6. #6 Stephen Wells
    June 8, 2010

    So we’ve established that Rho doesn’t think that rape can occur inside a marriage, thinks genocide is OK if you think God told you to, and doesn’t think that inflicting pain and suffering on other people is morally bad unless God specifically said so.

    Keep ‘em coming, Rho. It’s rare to meet such an honest sociopath.

  7. #7 Rhology
    June 9, 2010

    @201 Paul C,
    How can rape fall under sex outside of marriage when it is possible to rape somebody you are married to?

    1) If it’s rape of someone you’re not married to, then it would fall under that. (True, I didn’t think of intramarriage rape.)
    2) That would be a fine question if today we didn’t have the NT but just the OT, but we do have the NT which gives many guidelines about treating gently one’s wife.
    3) You’d need to prove that the possibility of intramarriage rape isn’t a product of anachronistic judgment on your part.

    @202 Joe,
    If Rho says that you can’t rape your wife, then he contradicts himself, because earlier, he clearly stated that rape was sex “under duress”. There were no exceptions for marriage.

    I didn’t say you can’t. Thanks!

    Married woman can be raped by their husbands

    Prove it. Moreover, prove that’s a category that women in Deuteronomy times would have understood and accepted.
    Yeah, you’re not going to be able to. Yet another fail. Ta ta yourself.

    @205 Prometheus,
    If the function of an internal critique is to confront the inherently contradictory elements of the naturalist unbeliever’s worldview in order to lead him to enlightenment through a process of introducing evangelical truisms as those contradictions(stated in his own terms) create successive vacuums….aren’t you failing here?

    An internal critique can be performed on anyone’s worldview.
    I’ve been insisting that y’all perform a valid internal critique against my position, but you haven’t been.

    Can you be qualified to conduct an internal critique without humility and therefore clothed in sin?

    I have no idea what this means.

    I can say that your incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule has hardened my heart

    OK. Bummer.
    Needless to say, I don’t take this kind of patronising attitude seriously. And I, as always, invite you to quote me engaging in “incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule”. Go ahead.
    The funny thing is, every time I ask ppl to quote me doing that, they fade into the night, wordless.

    @206 Stephen Wells,
    we’ve established that Rho doesn’t think that rape can occur inside a marriage

    Really? Where?

    thinks genocide is OK if you think God told you to

    Now please prove that’s a bad thing. You keep repeating yourself.

    doesn’t think that inflicting pain and suffering on other people is morally bad unless God specifically said so.

    No, that is not a good restatement of my position.
    Besides, when are you going to prove that these are bad things? How many times do I have to ask?

  8. #8 Kemanorel
    June 9, 2010

    Married woman can be raped by their husbands

    Prove it.

    ROFL. You don’t even have to respond to this. Just ROFL.

  9. #9 Stephen Wells
    June 9, 2010

    Rho claims that rape is covered by laws on sex outside marriage. Rho wants to know where he claimed that rape can’t occur within marriage. Rho is not very bright and does not understand what an “implication” is.

  10. #10 Paul C
    June 9, 2010

    That would be a fine question if today we didn’t have the NT but just the OT, but we do have the NT which gives many guidelines about treating gently one’s wife.

    How is that relevant to rape, which is by definition not treating one’s wife gently? The question stands.

    3) You’d need to prove that the possibility of intramarriage rape isn’t a product of anachronistic judgment on your part.

    Intramarriage rape has nothing to do with my judgement, since it’s a simple description of events: a husband forces a wife to have sex against her wishes. So this is irrelevant.

  11. #11 Prometheus
    June 9, 2010

    “I’ve been insisting that y’all perform a valid internal critique against my position, but you haven’t been.”

    That might be because internal critique is not recognized as having validity outside of a small division of Christian Apologetics and the few moldy hold outs of the most contorted and distended variations of Hegelian theory frontline evangelicals stole it from in the firstplace you intellectual infant.

    We aren’t christian apologists.

    Bugger off. We don’t have to play with your imaginary ball in your mom’s yard according to your rules.

    insisting that you have a right to make this kind of petulant demand is….well….

    ” I, as always, invite you to quote me engaging in “incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule”. Go ahead.”

    Res ipsa loquitur you insufferable clown.

  12. #12 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 9, 2010

    You’d need to prove that the possibility of intramarriage rape isn’t a product of anachronistic judgment on your part.

    So biblical morals are anachronistic? Agreed.

  13. #13 Rhology
    June 9, 2010

    @209 Stephen Wells,

    Rho wants to know where your evidence is.

    @210 Paul C,
    a husband forces a wife to have sex against her wishes

    It’s quite relevant – to what extent does “against her wishes” come into play in the time, with the man and the woman? Does that concept even really exist for the woman, has she ever thought of it?

    @211 Prometheus,
    That might be because internal critique is not recognized as having validity outside of a small division of Christian Apologetics

    Oooohhhh, I forgot you measure truth by nose-counting. My mistake.
    Tell you what, I’ll go ahead and perform an external critique on atheism. Ready? God says He exists, so He exists. Atheism is irrational. Booyah, we’re done here.
    Now please let me know how that furthers conversation.

    ” I, as always, invite you to quote me engaging in “incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule”. Go ahead.”
    Res ipsa loquitur you insufferable clown.

    So asking for evidence of a charge against me is “incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule”. Gotcha, thanks.
    I’m starting to think that someone who
    1) disagrees with you, and
    2) thinks they’re right and you’re wrong
    suffices for you to be assigned the label “preening and self-promotion”.
    BTW, isn’t “you insufferable clown” an attempt to hold me up to ridicule? Just wondering.

    @212 Vicklund,
    So biblical morals are anachronistic?

    You were making your side look much less foolish when you were silent.

  14. #14 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 9, 2010

    It’s quite relevant – to what extent does “against her wishes” come into play in the time, with the man and the woman? Does that concept even really exist for the woman, has she ever thought of it?

    This question is only relevant if biblical morals are anachronistic. In fact, Rho’s whole line of inquiry is only valid if his God is a moral relativist or no longer exists.

  15. #15 Prometheus
    June 9, 2010

    “BTW, isn’t “you insufferable clown” an attempt to hold me up to ridicule? Just wondering.”

    Try reading for content. You will wonder less.

    Again, I’m not proselytizing and I’m not attempting to correspond to some sort of naturalist apologetic stolen by a collection of douchebags who mangled up pre-mangled Adorno negative dialectics.

    I can ridicule you all I want because:

    1. you invite ridicule.

    2. I don’t want to sell you my belief system.

    Quit wasting your time and go to graduate school.

    No converts here.

  16. #16 Dave
    June 9, 2010

    If Rho says that you can’t rape your wife, then he contradicts himself, because earlier, he clearly stated that rape was sex “under duress”. There were no exceptions for marriage.

    I didn’t say you can’t. Thanks!

    So you agree, a woman can be raped by her husband.

    Married woman can be raped by their husbands

    Prove it.

    Or maybe you dont.

    BTW, clearly all your protestations in the past 100 posts show how much you dont care that we think you are morally repugnant.

  17. #17 Joe
    June 9, 2010

    Dear, sweet Rho. I knew that you couldn’t stay a way for long. You’re just like herpes! And, oh my, I can’t seem to find the acyclovir.

  18. #18 Paul C
    June 10, 2010

    It’s quite relevant – to what extent does “against her wishes” come into play in the time, with the man and the woman? Does that concept even really exist for the woman, has she ever thought of it?

    Unless you think that before the 20th century women didn’t have any mental processes, then yes, the concept exists for the woman and yes, she has thought of it. I am however interested to know on what basis you think that a man killing your family, holding a blade to your throat and violently raping you is ever something that could be considered in line with somebody’s wishes, whether today or three thousand years ago.

  19. #19 Rhology
    June 10, 2010

    a man killing your family, holding a blade to your throat and violently raping you is ever something that could be considered in line with somebody’s wishes

    Yes, that would be hard to see.
    1) Yet some people pay big money for that kind of thing. Hey, man, if you get off on it…
    2) Are you saying that’s the case of Deut 21, or are you asking some random and irrelevant question? If the former, where’s the evidence? I’ve been asking that this entire thread; maybe you have some that the others missed.

  20. #20 Kemanorel
    June 10, 2010

    1) Yet some people pay big money for that kind of thing. Hey, man, if you get off on it…

    Are you seriously confusing rape with “rape fantasy?” Do you really have to have the difference spelled out for you?

  21. #21 Dave
    June 10, 2010

    Are you seriously confusing rape with “rape fantasy”?

    Nah, hes just reaching for straws: Anything he can use to confuse, misdirect or obfuscate.

  22. #22 Stephen Wells
    June 11, 2010

    Isn’t it amusing that Rho thinks he can just assert that anything God says is good- without even establishing that there is a god, or that it ever said anything, or that there’s any ground for believing in its goodness- but then demands evidence for the proposition that “suffering is bad”, or that “rape often occurs during conquests”?

    Incidentally, Rho, I already told you on what grounds I consider things to be bad. You disagree because you don’t share my moral principles; big whoop. My moral principles can be shared by all rational consistent people who don’t like suffering, whereas yours can only be shared by those who share your belief that an ancient myth is true. I think this makes my principles superior. You disagree, big whoop.

  23. #23 Paul C
    June 11, 2010

    Yet some people pay big money for that kind of thing.

    Please cite a single example of a woman paying somebody to kill their family and rape them at knifepoint. Also note that if they were paying for somebody to rape them, then it isn’t rape because they have given their consent. Good luck.

    2) Are you saying that’s the case of Deut 21, or are you asking some random and irrelevant question?

    Neither. I was answering your question of whether the concept of “against her wishes” can be said to be “anachronistic”, and the answer is “no”.

  24. #24 Rhology
    June 11, 2010

    Please cite a single example of a woman paying somebody to kill their family and rape them at knifepoint

    I was referring to fantasies (some acted out) among SMists, of violent “oooh, force me!” style.

    I was answering your question of whether the concept of “against her wishes” can be said to be “anachronistic”, and the answer is “no”.

    By citing something that has no connection to the biblical psg under discussion. OK.

  25. #25 Kemanorel
    June 11, 2010

    I was referring to fantasies (some acted out) among SMists, of violent “oooh, force me!” style.

    Has nothing to do with real rape, and bringing up “rape fantasy” has no purpose here. Stick to the issues at hand.

  26. #26 Paul C
    June 12, 2010

    I was referring to fantasies (some acted out) among SMists, of violent “oooh, force me!” style.

    Then your argument is irrelevant to discussions about actual rape.

    By citing something that has no connection to the biblical psg under discussion. OK.

    This is also irrelevant, since you were asking a general question about whether the concept of intramarriage rape is anachronistic, to which the answer is no.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.