Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ... 20282930
Results 436 to 447 of 447
  1. #436
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,314
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    354
    Likes (Given)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    131
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    63
    Mentioned
    145 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    but it was NOT what you claimed it was when you posted this..

    in truth, they weren't even close to that......it's like taking a lego car and changing it slightly by moving a few blocks, then claiming you invented the automobile.....
    I think it is now a matter of semantics and you are not giving enough credit. Again you like to reduce incredibly complex achievements with a 3rd grade figure of speech. If you take a dead human, replace it's genome and reboot it successfully, I'd say you created life.

    "This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer,"
    We are creating the legos, not rearranging them. Rearranging would make a different genome.

    If you're only willing to accept us creating life by using RNA and amino acids and having it turn into a rhino, well, that will take some time, but we are at the entrance of that possibility.

  2. #437
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    GREATEST CITY ON EARTH, SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    3,007
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    315367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    but it was NOT what you claimed it was when you posted this..


    in truth, they weren't even close to that......it's like taking a lego car and changing it slightly by moving a few blocks, then claiming you invented the automobile.....
    I want to get more into this thread later, but for right now I want to add this.

    I think its funny that pro evolutionists think if they can create life from non living matter in a lab, that will somehow help, or actually prove that life evolved on its own.

    The absurdity of that concept. First, it will show that it took an intelligent being to create the life. Second, it will show that even with an intelligent being involved, it was incredibily difficult, so wouldnt that actually kinda be proving that it couldnt really have happened on accident?

    The only way to prove that evolution could have happened, and that wouldnt even be proof that it "did" happen, would be to take the elements neccessary and watch them gather themselves together somehow , someway, without any input whatsoever by an outsider, except as an observer.

    Last thing is, I would love to see an "evolutionist" put together a time line, a choronological scenario that accounts for each and every major life form and how it came about to exist. A "flow chart" if you will, on evolution. OK, here we have the single cell, then the multi cellular,


    then we have this little species here, that became this species, that became that species which eventually became a giraffe. Then they would have to have a "flow chart" or family tree that would account for every major species that exists today. I dont think they could do it, and much less do it to include ALL the species that exist.

    The sheer number of changes that would have had to have occured over the given time we have, would be too numerous for the amount of time alloted, because each and every transistional phase would have to be accounted for, I mean, how many "mutations" would have had to occur over time to account for a single cell evolving into a horse, lets say. Then you have to do that for every species, and I simply think you would quickly run out of time ,,,,especially considering a vast number of mutations are actually negative ones that dont cause an improvement in the species and thus fades away.
    I DONT CLAIM TO KN0OW ANYTHING ABOUT HUMAN NATURE
    N
    OIR DO I KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CRITICAL THINKING

  3. #438
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,314
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    354
    Likes (Given)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    131
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    63
    Mentioned
    145 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl View Post
    I think its funny that pro evolutionists think if they can create life from non living matter in a lab, that will somehow help, or actually prove that life evolved on its own.
    No one is claiming that. All that I am claiming is that science has figured a lot out and that the designer doesn't have to be god. If apes can figure this out in a few hundred years maybe god aint that smart. It is only a matter of time

    Moore's law in action.
    2002 - chemical synthesis of a 170,000 base pair genome
    2008 - chemical synthesis of a 582,970 base pair genome
    2010 - chemical synthesis of a 1,080,000 base pair genome.

    Quote Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl View Post
    The absurdity of that concept. First, it will show that it took an intelligent being to create the life. Second, it will show that even with an intelligent being involved, it was incredibily difficult, so wouldnt that actually kinda be proving that it couldnt really have happened on accident?
    Intelligent being can create life as we are seeing, but it isn't necessary. To quote Jurassic park, "Life finds a way".

    Quote Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl View Post
    The only way to prove that evolution could have happened, and that wouldnt even be proof that it "did" happen, would be to take the elements neccessary and watch them gather themselves together somehow , someway, without any input whatsoever by an outsider, except as an observer.
    You are simply ignorant and haven't taken a college level chemistry or biology course. Go to a local university and talk to a professor, your questions will be answered.

    Quote Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl View Post
    Last thing is, I would love to see an "evolutionist" put together a time line, a choronological scenario that accounts for each and every major life form and how it came about to exist. A "flow chart" if you will, on evolution. OK, here we have the single cell, then the multi cellular, then we have this little species here, that became this species, that became that species which eventually became a giraffe. Then they would have to have a "flow chart" or family tree that would account for every major species that exists today. I dont think they could do it, and much less do it to include ALL the species that exist.
    Certainly this is impossible as we haven't yet discovered every species. We discover many thousands each year. I do believe scientists can account for the complete history of some animals. Use google.

    Quote Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl View Post
    The sheer number of changes that would have had to have occured over the given time we have, would be too numerous for the amount of time alloted, because each and every transistional phase would have to be accounted for, I mean, how many "mutations" would have had to occur over time to account for a single cell evolving into a horse, lets say. Then you have to do that for every species, and I simply think you would quickly run out of time ,,,,especially considering a vast number of mutations are actually negative ones that dont cause an improvement in the species and thus fades away.
    Again, you are ignorant. Take a genetics course.
    Last edited by pete311; 07-28-2010 at 03:04 AM.

  4. #439
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,314
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    354
    Likes (Given)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    131
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    63
    Mentioned
    145 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I found the real meat of the study. Quite impressive!

    Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidp....1190719v1.pdf

  5. #440
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pete311 View Post
    I think it is now a matter of semantics and you are not giving enough credit. Again you like to reduce incredibly complex achievements with a 3rd grade figure of speech. If you take a dead human, replace it's genome and reboot it successfully, I'd say you created life.
    they didn't take a dead "human".....they took a living one.....if it had actually died on them they would have been screwed and would have had to use a different one.....because they DIDN'T create life.....

    let's be honest, pete, this wasn't a matter of semantics, it was a matter of over-reaching.....you wanted to make them look godlike when they were actually kids playing with legos....

    We are creating the legos, not rearranging them. Rearranging would make a different genome.
    you're not creating legos.....the legos are just organic chemical molecules....all they have done is stack them differently....

    If you're only willing to accept us creating life by using RNA and amino acids and having it turn into a rhino, well, that will take some time, but we are at the entrance of that possibility.
    nice try, but if you really want to claim that you created life, start with organic chemical molecules and produce a single celled creature that is self reproducing.....the above is just another lame attempt at pretending you've created life when you actually haven't.......
    ...full immersion.....

  6. #441
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,314
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    354
    Likes (Given)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    131
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    63
    Mentioned
    145 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    let's be honest, pete, this wasn't a matter of semantics, it was a matter of over-reaching.....you wanted to make them look godlike when they were actually kids playing with legos....
    kids playing with legos... you really don't give them enough credit for the complexity of whatis being done

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    nice try, but if you really want to claim that you created life, start with organic chemical molecules and produce a single celled creature that is self reproducing.....the above is just another lame attempt at pretending you've created life when you actually haven't.......
    fair enough, but we are at the door step. lame attempt? again, you apparently can't comprehend the technological genius that is going on all around you, all made from science.

  7. #442
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pete311 View Post
    kids playing with legos... you really don't give them enough credit for the complexity of whatis being done
    it's all relative.....if you look at a piece of computer code and manage to make the computer add a list of numbers instead of subtract the numbers by changing the code, I am NOT going to give you credit for creating computers.....let me know when you create your own version of DNA, take inert molecular chemical compounds (dust of the earth) and make it alive (breath life into it).......then we'll talk about equal billing with God.....


    fair enough, but we are at the door step. lame attempt? again, you apparently can't comprehend the technological genius that is going on all around you, all made from science.
    again you overreach.....I did not describe what the scientists are doing as a lame attempt.....I described your argument as a lame attempt.....
    ...full immersion.....

  8. #443
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pete311 View Post
    If apes can figure this out in a few hundred years maybe god aint that smart.

    You are simply ignorant and haven't taken a college level chemistry or biology course. Go to a local university and talk to a professor, your questions will be answered.
    does anyone else find it amusing to see these two sentences in the same post?......

    God save us from the patronizingly ignorant.....
    ...full immersion.....

  9. #444
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,314
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    354
    Likes (Given)
    36
    Likes (Received)
    131
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    63
    Mentioned
    145 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Here is another thread I picked up. Has a couple interesting points especially in post #8 and #10.
    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=426986

  10. #445
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle Metro
    Posts
    534
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10208

    Default

    Burp.............. er........ excuse me.

  11. #446
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,471
    Thanks (Given)
    214
    Thanks (Received)
    264
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2395474

    Default

    Science seeks to explain that which is observable. Evolution, as a theory, is a product of this attempt. Creation doesn't explain anything which is observable, so creation and evolution aren't competitive with one-another. There are those who disavow creation because it bears no witness, but nonetheless have unanswered questions. I am inclined to a reasonable degree of faith in such cases, as that which is as yet unobservable may still exist.
    He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.AeschylusRead more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...zeMUwcpY1Io.99

  12. #447
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle Metro
    Posts
    534
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Science seeks to explain that which is observable.
    Yup, that is why the "BIG BANG" which very clearly appears ta be a creation event makes "ID" the most viable of the two opposing theories.

    "Observable"........ me arse.........honk......honk


    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Evolution, as a theory, is a product of this attempt.
    What a silly post........


    So is creation: Einstein.........


    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Creation doesn't explain anything which is observable, so creation and evolution aren't competitive with one-another.
    Wrong.....does yer brain werk at all?


    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    There are those who disavow creation because it bears no witness, but nonetheless have unanswered questions.

    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Are you smokin' somethin' again?????

    Both theories have "unanswered questions".....it is jus' the religion of Evolution that has FAR MORE......."unanswered questions"......burp......pffffft.....excuse me.


    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    I am inclined to a reasonable degree of faith in such cases, as that which is as yet unobservable may still exist.
    Sooooooooooooooo yer a true believer in the religion of Evolution or some such.....? Ya really have problems with clear posts don't ya?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums