Do you believe in God?

[Dark Lord Al]

Worm food .

[walrus]

Negative, evolution believes a single cell creature came about by some kind of chance, experienced thousands of mutations and through natural selection created all the beings that have been on the planet. I'm just saying the evidence isn't there.

I explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?

Microevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.

I would love to hear you to say what the theory is that you subscribe to. Seeing as how you can't scientifically justify evolution in your mind, using observable documented evidence what is the theory you subscribe to?

You keep running of the track. You wrote that in my mind evolution can't be proven when in the beginning you said no one knows how life started. You keep asking what my theory is but that's not my point with all this, it was simply to discuss evolution

[killersheep]

Negative, evolution believes a single cell creature came about by some kind of chance, experienced thousands of mutations and through natural selection created all the beings that have been on the planet. I'm just saying the evidence isn't there.

I explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?

Microevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.

I would love to hear you to say what the theory is that you subscribe to. Seeing as how you can't scientifically justify evolution in your mind, using observable documented evidence what is the theory you subscribe to?

You keep running of the track. You wrote that in my mind evolution can't be proven when in the beginning you said no one knows how life started. You keep asking what my theory is but that's not my point with all this, it was simply to discuss evolution

No, when you stated that science does not support evolution, you are implying that science does support something. Because science by it's very nature is simply the best understanding of the natural world we can perceive based on the evidence we have uncovered. Therefore, if you don't believe that science supports evolution, it becomes very relevant to the discussion to establish what you believe the science does support.

[walrus]

Negative, evolution believes a single cell creature came about by some kind of chance, experienced thousands of mutations and through natural selection created all the beings that have been on the planet. I'm just saying the evidence isn't there.

I explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?

Microevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.

I would love to hear you to say what the theory is that you subscribe to. Seeing as how you can't scientifically justify evolution in your mind, using observable documented evidence what is the theory you subscribe to?

You keep running of the track. You wrote that in my mind evolution can't be proven when in the beginning you said no one knows how life started. You keep asking what my theory is but that's not my point with all this, it was simply to discuss evolution

No, when you stated that science does not support evolution, you are implying that science does support something. Because science by it's very nature is simply the best understanding of the natural world we can perceive based on the evidence we have uncovered. Therefore, if you don't believe that science supports evolution, it becomes very relevant to the discussion to establish what you believe the science does support.

Science does not support the creation of life in anyway shape or form. I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, I'm just saying it is not fact. So I don't have science proving what I believe and I don't have science proving, beyond a reasonable doubt the theory of evolution. But I will say nowhere in science has it been observed that life comes from anything other than life.

[killersheep]

Negative, evolution believes a single cell creature came about by some kind of chance, experienced thousands of mutations and through natural selection created all the beings that have been on the planet. I'm just saying the evidence isn't there.

I explained it's part in the theory of evolution to you, but you jumped to a conclusion again. If you do not believe there is evidence to support evolution, what you would call macroevolution, what is the theory you are subscribing to?

Microevolution has been observed within a species. It might happen at the Macrolevel but not one species evolving into another. This all started when someone posted evolution was a fact. Too much science is still not out there. As far as other options we haven't discussed that yet. Would you care to start.

I would love to hear you to say what the theory is that you subscribe to. Seeing as how you can't scientifically justify evolution in your mind, using observable documented evidence what is the theory you subscribe to?

You keep running of the track. You wrote that in my mind evolution can't be proven when in the beginning you said no one knows how life started. You keep asking what my theory is but that's not my point with all this, it was simply to discuss evolution

No, when you stated that science does not support evolution, you are implying that science does support something. Because science by it's very nature is simply the best understanding of the natural world we can perceive based on the evidence we have uncovered. Therefore, if you don't believe that science supports evolution, it becomes very relevant to the discussion to establish what you believe the science does support.

Science does not support the creation of life in anyway shape or form. I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, I'm just saying it is not fact. So I don't have science proving what I believe and I don't have science proving, beyond a reasonable doubt the theory of evolution. But I will say nowhere in science has it been observed that life comes from anything other than life.

Except, that it has.
Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

Evolution is simply the best understanding we can perceive based on the scientific evidence we have.
The model is such that it makes sense with what we perceive in the natural world.
To say the science doesn't support it is foolish and misguided. While it is not a "fact"
it is a theory that is backed by loads of science. Similarly gravity is a theory and not
a fact as well, do you doubt the evidence of gravity?

[VictorCharlie]

We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair
Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other
designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.

Well that clears it all up.

[killersheep]

We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair
Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other
designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.

Well that clears it all up.

If you read beyond the abstract it's much clearer, just click on the "Read the full text" link.

[walrus]

Do you see this is poesis, of human construction.

[killersheep]

Do you see this is poesis, of human construction.

Yes I agree that a group of humans constructed this. It still shows that combinations
of chemicals can create life. Something that was not alive, became alive, whether guided
or not. This still stands with my assertion, that we can not know what begat life.

[Andre]

Word.

[Andre]

there was no smiley showing someone pointing to the ground with a gang sign. Honestly who runs this show .

[Andre]

We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair
Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other
designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.

Well that clears it all up.

God, I so want to memorize that as my standard answer to every person that annoys me in the future.

[walrus]

We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair
Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other
designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.

Well that clears it all up.

God, I so want to memorize that as my standard answer to every person that annoys me in the future.

You might want something a bit shorter if it is going to be for EVERYONE who annoys you. You will be putting a lot of time in saying over a hundred times a day, unless you become a shut in which make it manageable

[walrus]

Do you see this is poesis, of human construction.

Yes I agree that a group of humans constructed this. It still shows that combinations
of chemicals can create life. Something that was not alive, became alive, whether guided
or not. This still stands with my assertion, that we can not know what begat life.

Yes, scientists have also made amino acids, a certain type of RNA using models of the real stuff and a few other basic building blocks of life. It's very amazing what they can do. I think we will see more in the not to distant future. I now of a few other microbes developed in the lab. Some times the use viral material as virus is so efficient at replicating itself. I get a little nervous sometimes when they play around with this stuff. They could bring about some type of microbe that will kill us all, or turn us into flesh eating Zombies. Anyway it is interesting. I read a couple books on the subject. Science isn't my favorite topic to read about but I found it quite interesting.
This thread was originally about belief in God, and yes I do believe in God but I find evolution to be an interesting topic. I don't use it as a basis to prove or not the existence of God.

[killersheep]

Do you see this is poesis, of human construction.

Yes I agree that a group of humans constructed this. It still shows that combinations
of chemicals can create life. Something that was not alive, became alive, whether guided
or not. This still stands with my assertion, that we can not know what begat life.

Yes, scientists have also made amino acids, a certain type of RNA using models of the real stuff and a few other basic building blocks of life. It's very amazing what they can do. I think we will see more in the not to distant future. I now of a few other microbes developed in the lab. Some times the use viral material as virus is so efficient at replicating itself. I get a little nervous sometimes when they play around with this stuff. They could bring about some type of microbe that will kill us all, or turn us into flesh eating Zombies. Anyway it is interesting. I read a couple books on the subject. Science isn't my favorite topic to read about but I found it quite interesting.
This thread was originally about belief in God, and yes I do believe in God but I find evolution to be an interesting topic. I don't use it as a basis to prove or not the existence of God.

Yet you used abiogenesis as reasoning that you didn't believe evolution. As you are no doubt aware, Evolution does not concern itself with the mechanism that created life only the path life takes through natural selection. Yes the theory assumes that life is not infinite, and had a beginning, but that's it, the end of evolution's concern in the matter.