The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
... meanwhile, in the rest of the world, creation myths dwindle into history and evolution research continues because there is no alternative.

Funny thing is, a majority if not all research done through TRUE SCIENCE not only confirmed Creation but made it stronger. In fact, science is actually just cathing up with what the Bible has already stated and predicted.

Looks like time for another thread.

Isn't it about time you posted a few citations? You're living in a self-made fantasy world.

If "true science" has confirmed creation, then there must be at least 100 peer-reviewed articles to substantiate your claim.

I won't hold my breath....................

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
... meanwhile, in the rest of the world, creation myths dwindle into history and evolution research continues because there is no alternative.

Funny thing is, a majority if not all research done through TRUE SCIENCE not only confirmed Creation but made it stronger. In fact, science is actually just cathing up with what the Bible has already stated and predicted.

Looks like time for another thread.

Isn't it about time you posted a few citations? You're living in a self-made fantasy world.

If "true science" has confirmed creation, then there must be at least 100 peer-reviewed articles to substantiate your claim.

I won't hold my breath....................

I can list 200 but one will do.

This one:

Life can only create life. You just can't refute this fact. No one can.

All scientific data, studies, and research have proven this to be 100% factual - even the ones done by evolutionists. In fact, let me use this link:

www.youtube.com...

Any idea of how the synthetic cell was created? And who created it?

a reply to: edmc^2

Biologists create the most lifelike artificial cells yetlink

Real interested in there next experiments with self-replication.

a reply to: edmc^2

So... your video said specifically they created a living cell from "non living" material...

Are you pointing to the fact that it was created? I seem to recall someone saying life can not come from non-life somewhere in one of these threads

Kinda sounds like you just refuted that notion...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: edmc^2

Biologists create the most lifelike artificial cells yetlink

Real interested in there next experiments with self-replication.

ha ha ha ha, oh man, my tummy hurts.

Oh, the irony. You didn't even see it.

Since you consider yourself a god, what do the words "lifelike artificial" mean to you?

Here's what the dictionary says - unless you disagree:

Lifelike | Definition of Lifelike by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com...
Lifelike definition is - accurately representing or imitating real life.

ar·ti·fi·cial
[ˌärdəˈfiSHəl]
ADJECTIVE
made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.
"her skin glowed in the artificial light" ·
synonyms:
artificial · synthetic · manufactured · machine-made · fabricated · imitation ·
(of a situation or concept) not existing naturally; contrived or false.
"the artificial division of people into age groups"
synonyms:
synthetic · fake · false · imitation · mock · simulated · faux · ersatz ·
(of a person or their behavior) insincere or affected.
"an artificial smile"
synonyms:
feigned · insincere · false · affected · mannered · unnatural · stilted ·
bridge
(of a bid) conventional as opposed to natural.
"the Italian team began with an artificial club"


BTW - please keep sending your proof as I'm intending to use them in my next thread.

a reply to: edmc^2

You said I was a god. All I had to do was show you that vid.

You already lost when set the challenge. I bet you had a nervous breakdown which explains your current state.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: edmc^2

So... your video said specifically they created a living cell from "non living" material...

Are you pointing to the fact that it was created? I seem to recall someone saying life can not come from non-life somewhere in one of these threads

Kinda sounds like you just refuted that notion...

Do I need to explain to you what the video clearly said?

The narrator said: "... they ISOLATED BACTERIAL CELLS..." then remove the DNA from it and replace it with a 'synthesize DNA" to reboot it and get it to regenerate (reboot) and to reproduce.


Ergo, without the EXISTING BACTERIAL CELL, they have no way of generating a 'synthetic cell'.

Here's more accurate information. Not a video narrated by a tv host.

...
Once the synthetic DNA segment reached the desired length the scientists injected it into a Mycoplasma bacterium that had had its own DNA removed earlier. Needless to say, the process of assembling such a lengthy piece of synthetic DNA was complicated.

"I hope the day comes when making genomes is something everyone can do," said Pamela Silver, a systems biologist at Harvard Medical School.

The new, synthetic DNA "booted up" the bacterium, but not without a few problems; several of the synthesized genes didn't work properly. And the genes that did work didn't do anything particularly useful, at least by human standards.

The Mycoplasma bacteria grew and reproduced, but that was about all. Within several years however, Venter, along with dozens of other researchers and companies, hope to create more exciting bacteria that will speed up the production and drive down the costs of biofuels, vaccines and drugs.
....

In other words, they just replicated life, copied what was already there - a bacteria. As they said, they :

hope to create more exciting bacteria

bold mine

abcnews.go.com...

More here:

www.theguardian.com...

Now, how about starting from scratch but giving you a leg up by providing you a lump of dead meat - now create life from that without using an existing life.

Like I said - Life begets Life.

Evolution is a dead end.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: edmc^2

You said I was a god. All I had to do was show you that vid.

You already lost when set the challenge. I bet you had a nervous breakdown which explains your current state.

Still avoiding my question eh?

a reply to: edmc^2

Now, how about starting from scratch but giving you a leg up by providing you a lump of dead meat - now create life from that without using an existing life.

Like I said - Life begets Life.

Evolution is a dead end.

Except... evolution isn't about how life began, which has been stated over and over... you guys don't seem to let that sink in...

Evolution is about how existing life changes over time... lol

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: edmc^2

Now, how about starting from scratch but giving you a leg up by providing you a lump of dead meat - now create life from that without using an existing life.

Like I said - Life begets Life.

Evolution is a dead end.

Except... evolution isn't about how life began, which has been stated over and over... you guys don't seem to let that sink in...

Evolution is about how existing life changes over time... lol

Oh, the switcharooo.

hahahaha!

a reply to: edmc^2

No... The religious side of this discussion doesn't pay attention

or read....

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: edmc^2

You said I was a god. All I had to do was show you that vid.

You already lost when set the challenge. I bet you had a nervous breakdown which explains your current state.

Still avoiding my question eh?

I already answered your question. The video answered your question. If you can't figure it out after being spoonfed the info that would explain the stupidty of you naming me a god.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: edmc^2

You said I was a god. All I had to do was show you that vid.

You already lost when set the challenge. I bet you had a nervous breakdown which explains your current state.

Still avoiding my question eh?

I already answered your question. The video answered your question. If you can't figure it out after being spoonfed the info that would explain the stupidty of you naming me a god.

And yet again. Still no answer to my question.

btw - cool sig. where did you get it? Must be an original!

a reply to: edmc^2

What's your question again? Can life come from non-life?

I answered that pages ago (or possibly another thread)... the only honest answer to that question is "We don't know". Any other suggestively definitive answer is you projecting your beliefs.

"Life can only create life."...what you keep offering as some type of proof... ahhhh, what?... this is not a fact... not in any way... it is a supposition.

You have to provide a proof for it to be a fact. For instance, how do you know that crystalline structures interacting with amino acid filled lightning storms on Nebulon 6 don't regularly create life from non-life? You don't, and you can't prove it... so not a fact at all.

You fail at understanding what facts are.

Creationists say "NO... life was created!" -> Current number of research groups testing this? = Zero = 0
Scientists say "We don't know, but here's a hypothesis based on observations that we can test" (ie. abiogenesis... among many others) -> current number of research groups testing this = many = too many to try to list here.

Evidenced by this site... creationists are dishonest.

All of this is irrelevant... because it has nothing to do with evolution.

So where is your repeatable, verifiable fact for creation? You haven't answered my question yet, because you can't.

All you have is fairy tales.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

To summarise;
Creationism relies on man made scripture.
Evolutionism relies on scientific data.

Creationism relies on blind faith and the belief in some sort of almighty being/entity.
Evolutionism relies on physical evidence, observable adaptions and scientific process.

One has no supportive evidence at all.
The other is by far the best explanation we have at present with a mountain of thoroughly scrutinised and referenced material etc.

a reply to: edmc^2

This is not a scientific research paper - it's a news report - and I'm familiar with the contents.

If you can't post at least a dozen of the 200 papers you mentioned, then you are an outright fraud.

Post the citations.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

What's your question again? Can life come from non-life?

I answered that pages ago (or possibly another thread)... the only honest answer to that question is "We don't know". Any other suggestively definitive answer is you projecting your beliefs.

"Life can only create life."...what you keep offering as some type of proof... ahhhh, what?... this is not a fact... not in any way... it is a supposition.

You have to provide a proof for it to be a fact. For instance, how do you know that crystalline structures interacting with amino acid filled lightning storms on Nebulon 6 don't regularly create life from non-life? You don't, and you can't prove it... so not a fact at all.

You fail at understanding what facts are.

Creationists say "NO... life was created!" -> Current number of research groups testing this? = Zero = 0
Scientists say "We don't know, but here's a hypothesis based on observations that we can test" (ie. abiogenesis... among many others) -> current number of research groups testing this = many = too many to try to list here.

Evidenced by this site... creationists are dishonest.

All of this is irrelevant... because it has nothing to do with evolution.

So where is your repeatable, verifiable fact for creation? You haven't answered my question yet, because you can't.

All you have is fairy tales.

Can life come from non-life?

the only honest answer to that question is "We don't know"

As I expected. The copout answer, but at least you're honest.

In any case, the fact still remains that YOU have 0 evidence of life emerging from non-life. Creation, on the other hand, has solid evidence of life emerging from life.

As I already explained, based on on the video provided by your fellow evolution believer - i.e. - 'synthetic cell', Dr. Venter and his team can ONLY RECREATE (repeat: RECREATE) life from existing life. This experiment can be REPEATED billion-trillion times over.

Search the entire internet for evidence of scientists CREATING life from non-living matter (dead meat - prime rib steak if you prefer), you will not find it. But you will find (using your favorite word) TRUCKLOADS of evidence for Life transmitting, imparting, creating, begetting, replicating, regenerating life.

As for evolution - it's a dead-end - to believe in.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

This is not a scientific research paper - it's a news report - and I'm familiar with the contents.

If you can't post at least a dozen of the 200 papers you mentioned, then you are an outright fraud.

Post the citations.

This is not a scientific research paper - it's a news report

Tell that to you fellow evolution believers. They are the ones who provided it to support this ridiculous idea that non-living things can produce life WITHOUT using an already existing life.

TIP:

You people need to make sure your evidence is solid before you post it.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

This is not a scientific research paper - it's a news report - and I'm familiar with the contents.

If you can't post at least a dozen of the 200 papers you mentioned, then you are an outright fraud.

Post the citations.

This is not a scientific research paper - it's a news report

Tell that to you fellow evolution believers. They are the ones who provided it to support this ridiculous idea that non-living things can produce life WITHOUT using an already existing life.

TIP:

You people need to make sure your evidence is solid before you post it.

Where are your citations? You stated that you had at least 200. Post the citations or be labeled as a fraud.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

This is not a scientific research paper - it's a news report - and I'm familiar with the contents.

If you can't post at least a dozen of the 200 papers you mentioned, then you are an outright fraud.

Post the citations.

This is not a scientific research paper - it's a news report

Tell that to you fellow evolution believers. They are the ones who provided it to support this ridiculous idea that non-living things can produce life WITHOUT using an already existing life.

TIP:

You people need to make sure your evidence is solid before you post it.

Where are your citations? You stated that you had at least 200. Post the citations or be labeled as a fraud.

ok. let's start with this:

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god' Artificial life has been created in a laboratory for the first time by a maverick scientist.

How did they create life, you asked?

First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer. Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one. Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code. The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

bold mine

www.telegraph.co.uk... ml

Now, please debunk this WELL DOCUMENTED PEER-REVIEWED experiment by a RENOWNED scientist.

Did they not create life from pre-existing life?

Or was it from dead meat they created life from?

Prove me wrong.

No strawman argument. Just pure scientific research.