Do you believe in God?

[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.

[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

[IamInuit]

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.

I'm not sure I understand this. Science is a result of life whether we were around or not and could very well be the basis for it. Science would have been there regardless of someone being there to discover it. For example the laws of gravity existed before Newton wrote them down. The question I guess now is who the cook was for all of this. A designer modeled after the God religions describe or random chance. Both are as unlikely as the other imo.

Something cannot have happened and then be said not to be a fact. If you fell down, you fell down. I think its pretty clear that evolution was and is a fact and its happening around us today from plants and insects to birds, animals etc. Life for the most part finds a way. Polar bears are moving south as the ice melts and Grizzly bears are moving north. There has already been documented offspring. So in effect a new species is at its beginning stages and right in front of our eyes. Life finds a way. That is until our enlightened species came along. Anything even near as successful if you want to call it that as us went extinct and we have been on the fast track behind them since the industrial revolution. To bad we haven't evolved. When we are gone and if theirs anything left after our raping and pillaging life will go merrily along without us and evolve. I mean lets be honest, this planet would be much better off w/o us. Our extinction will be more proof of evolution in many ways but nobody will be around to document it. The human epitaph will read, "thanks for the blink in time and good riddance" signed thee earth.

From nothing, nothing derives does not disprove evolution anymore then it proves a Christian God. Evolution is a result of life. W/o it there is no evolution. Evolution does not prove origin. For all anyone here knows, evolution could be part of the design, plan, whatever. I noticed Aliens were mentioned. Perhaps they are the Gods and they injected us with a conscience for some grand experiment. Ending up as somebody's oil change and that's it is not a pleasant contemplation.

Again I have no problem with the possibility that something intelligent could be behind all of this. If something like that exists then it follows that it would have to be way beyond my comprehension in complexity. I certainly would not attempt to describe such a force using the shifting foundations of human emotion. No way does something that weak create all of this.

[walrus]

I was speaking only on the origins of life, not life itself. Does that make sense, I babbled on so much in this thread I think brain matter leaked out of my ear

[Andre]

I have no idea where anyone got the idea that if evolution is proven, it dismisses creation,I have no idea who came up with the idea that if a creator is proven it dispels evolution?
I suspect a religion has fucked us over once again drawing up the wrong lines.
These are material things- evolution, it hasnt anything to do with the spirit of things.

We are talking 3d-4d evolution, the rest to me is above that realm by a long way.
Why would something of a higher frequency and light speed be bothered controlling material things? Where if it exists the proof is that it has allowed life to form here in this solid dimension and it lets us go like plants. We have deformed ourselves in some cultures dna through many means and we have bettered ourselves in others.
Religion is stupid thinking God has all the controls. If it wasnt for mankind being allowed his natural course, medicine and doctors through science etc, most of us wouldn't be here I would have died at birth if it wasn't for man and his evolving way.Right or wrong thats whats happening here.
Yet I still believe in the one God and not religions rules, especially the more controlling ones and the ones that hold women down.

[killersheep]

I have no idea where anyone got the idea that if evolution is proven, it dismisses creation,I have no idea who came up with the idea that if a creator is proven it dispels evolution?
I suspect a religion has fucked us over once again drawing up the wrong lines.
These are material things- evolution, it hasnt anything to do with the spirit of things.

We are talking 3d-4d evolution, the rest to me is above that realm by a long way.
Why would something of a higher frequency and light speed be bothered controlling material things? Where if it exists the proof is that it has allowed life to form here in this solid dimension and it lets us go like plants. We have deformed ourselves in some cultures dna through many means and we have bettered ourselves in others.
Religion is stupid thinking God has all the controls. If it wasnt for mankind being allowed his natural course, medicine and doctors through science etc, most of us wouldn't be here I would have died at birth if it wasn't for man and his evolving way.Right or wrong thats whats happening here.
Yet I still believe in the one God and not religions rules, especially the more controlling ones and the ones that hold women down.

Evolution can really only disagree with the creation part in literal regards to genesis. If someone believes in a literal interpretation, then there is a very big problem from the Creationist side. Now if someone believes that genesis is simply metaphor, then there isn't really an issue. Of course if it is Intelligent Design/Creationism Philosophy (legally not a science and legally one and the same) in the strictest sense yes there is a place for a creator in the origins of life on earth, the other offshoots such as young earthers (those that believe the earth is only 10K years old, or even younger than that) and that believe Dinosaurs lived beside man etc. They have even more problems with evolution.

The big issue here is that both sides have huge stakes in being right.

[Andre]

I was speaking only on the origins of life, not life itself. Does that make sense, I babbled on so much in this thread I think brain matter leaked out of my ear

A walrus with brain matter leaking out of an ear, the down side of clubbing.

[VictorCharlie]

I love it when Killer comes on and flexes that big geek brain of his.