Evolution vs. Creation

[MikeF]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
I sort of half watched a horizon program about 6 months ago and it was suggested that true life from non living chemical ingredients is predicted within 10 to 12 years. Unfortunately I can’t remember the name of the program so I need to wait for the repeat.
Artificial, self replicating life has been created in the laboratory
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Sc...
I also heard similar artificial molecules have been seen to evolve
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-a...

Great links! Thanks for posting them.

[woodtick57]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
I sort of half watched a horizon program about 6 months ago and it was suggested that true life from non living chemical ingredients is predicted within 10 to 12 years. Unfortunately I can’t remember the name of the program so I need to wait for the repeat.
Artificial, self replicating life has been created in the laboratory
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7745868/Sc...
I also heard similar artificial molecules have been seen to evolve
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-a...

I love that! "sort of half watched..."

that's why I gave up TV so long ago...i used to sort of half watch $60/month of crap....

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>is that why Aristotle stated that women have a different number of teeth than men? see how well that works!

that's not mental, that's dental. lol

[Benjamin Frankly]

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL!
It is entirely correct. You are welcome to prove otherwise. No one has yet, and they've been working very hard to find a better model than currently exists.
Genetic engineering does not make new species, it changes current ones for some specific purpose, like seedless grapes.
But seedless grapes is not a positive change for evolution, as obviously, such grapes would go extinct the moment humans stopped growing them.
That is not evolution. Nor does it force evolution.
Now, if you have actual evidence of enough positive mutations occurring in any species that it created a new species, let's see the data. I assure you, you'd be a hero of the scientific community of you could pull that off.
:)

No need the hero has been already here just are just 3 examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphanobrassica
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n67...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_maggot
Please research before you assert! If you won’t be this go away.

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>yet there is not one teensy bit of evidnece of ANY supernatural processes...ever. not one. not even Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat...
so with the lack of any supernatural events, that pretty much only leaves natural events doesn't it?
when you exclude the impossible, the remaining options, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

So you want something the defies the laws of physics?

Let's see. UK seems to know stuff like Science.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pla...

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
that's not mental, that's dental. lol

and yet his 'mind power' told him this was so...

too bad he didn't use his 'eye power'

( in Aristotle's defense, he was a HUGE Blackhawks fan....)

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
So you want something the defies the laws of physics?
Let's see. UK seems to know stuff like Science.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pla...

yes, I remember that. not really against the laws of physics, just something we don't understand.

the way Galaxies hold together is against the laws of physics we know, but since the laws of physics are the same in all points of observation (as far as we know) then the only logical conclusion is there is data we are not seeing or understanding.

still no supernatural event ever proved. ever. not one.

[MikeF]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>yet there is not one teensy bit of evidnece of ANY supernatural processes...ever. not one. not even Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat...
so with the lack of any supernatural events, that pretty much only leaves natural events doesn't it?
when you exclude the impossible, the remaining options, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Holmes was probably responsible for my interest in science. I read just about everything written by Doyle when I was a kid.

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>and yet his 'mind power' told him this was so...
too bad he didn't use his 'eye power'
( in Aristotle's defense, he was a HUGE Blackhawks fan....)

Now you're just amusing me.

How do you know he's not a Devils fan?

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you're just amusing me.
How do you know he's not a Devils fan?

they don't play hard enough to lose teeth...

[woodtick57]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
Holmes was probably responsible for my interest in science. I read just about everything written by Doyle when I was a kid.

Sadly, I have read none. i shall endeaver to rectify this lapse in my bibliography...

i DID hang out at the first brew pub in MN called Sherlock's Home/Watson's Pub for many years...(classic old style English pub. Even the bar back was hand carved and brought over from an old English pub. award winning stouts and ales and a great selection of single malts...)

those were the days...

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>yes, I remember that. not really against the laws of physics, just something we don't understand.
the way Galaxies hold together is against the laws of physics we know, but since the laws of physics are the same in all points of observation (as far as we know) then the only logical conclusion is there is data we are not seeing or understanding.
still no supernatural event ever proved. ever. not one.

So you want evidence for something like vampires and Dracula.
Eye C.

Have you seen the Twilight Saga? That explains why wolves can turn into humans. lol

[woodtick57]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
So you want evidence for something like vampires and Dracula.
Eye C.
Have you seen the Twilight Saga? That explains why wolves can turn into humans. lol

Evidence of anything supernatural would be something? i mean how cool would that be!

[Cybele]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Evidence of anything supernatural would be something? i mean how cool would that be!

Even if there was evidence, it wouldn't want to be in a stupid circus show with other freaks.

[Langoliers]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>By now, after listing to you guys for the last several years, I have become an expert in bullshit.

LOL

[lisawow]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
why wouldn't there be when God invented sex. HAHAHA!

why are you a man pretending to be a womann....the question is not answered????

[Cybele]

lisawow wrote:

<quoted text>why are you a man pretending to be a womann....the question is not answered????

WTF are you talking about?

[Langoliers]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>Lack of evidence is a logical and valid reason to dismiss the claim. The Exodus myth has no evidence, therefore it is dismissed as myth, otherwise leprechauns are also real, there is no evidence that they are not real.

Good move, now you think that lack of proof is proof. You can justify any way if think you think is right.

Just one thing. Prove that no proof is proof. You do that and I'll agree with you.( on the leprechauns )

[Langoliers]

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Evidence of anything supernatural would be something? i mean how cool would that be!

Pretty cool.
I see it all the time.

[Charles Idemi]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Don’t be stupid,(oh, sorry if you can’t help it) how can it die when there are gullible fools like you unwilling to accept proven scientific fact but would rather suckle on bronze age mythology and fall in line behind those who are earning a living out of fooling people?
Muslim terrorist believe that is thy die in jihad that will go to a place with 72 virgins to wait on there every need. No one has ever proven this true but it does not stop the terrorists.
E=MC^2 proves that no omnipotent (infinite power/energy) being (Revelation 19:6 KJV) can exist in this universe because you exist.
DNA proves that genetic adam and genetic eve lives 80,000 years apart, yet the babble says otherwise
Biology shows that snakes and donkeys do not and have never been able to talk yet the babble says otherwise
The geological column proves that Noah’s flood was a crock, yet the babble says otherwise. Based on the mores of the time it was as good a story as any, but time and knowledge advances.
Astronomy proves that no supanova occurred to turn carbon into a column of salt, yet the babble says otherwise, actually it does not understand what it says and puts the whole thing down to god magic.
The roman archives and other documents show that the jesus of the babble was a terrorist who was crucified for his crimes
But I see that you have not yet bothered answering my question, whassup? No answer?
You have still not provided any evidence after all this time. Honey what is this showing, it is showing that you are a christian from nothing more than incredulity

More and more of rants will ever change who the almighty God is. You are going to end up like others, adding more nutrients to the soil.