Creationists - Explain this please

reply to post by voices1776


Male and female discount evoloution as creation. Are we to believe that every species evolved seperately into a male and female version that could procreate and make more?

It doesn't discount evolution. It's certainly not a fairly well known field compared to... say.. using Endogenous Retroviruses to trace common descent. But considering the mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, it's safe to say that yes - sex did evolve. This is why we research. And it's not like we don't have workable hypothesis based on currently known evidence.

Evolution of Sexual Reproduction

No matter how deep they dig or how deep they go in the ocean they find living organisms. In environments we thought would be impossible to support life.

This is a testament to how deterministic evolution is. Just because life exists outside of your current world view, doesn't mean it had to specially designed. Indeed, research strongly suggests that while Carbon is the most common basis for life, it's not necessarily the only one. Silicon and Arsenic can also be a basis for life.

How many articles have you read that say "Scientists are having rethink" or "Scientits are re-evaluating the theory that".

When was the last time you ever heard of a Creationist rethinking anything? Well, other than thinking of a new name to call their movement before trying to push it into the classrooms as if nobody would notice.

Everytime they dig up something new they have to change their way of thinking.

Major paradigm shifts don't happen nearly as often as you suggest. And even if they did, it it a testament to Darwin's theory that with all that upheaval in the scientific community due to new facts, new evidence, and new knowledge - that it still stands strong today. Even in the face of such amazing breakthroughs as exploration of the fossil record and the discovery of DNA/RNA. Indeed, they are 100% compatible with Darwin's theory.

I don't know how any self respecting scientist could spout evolution as creation.

I don't either, because they don't say that. Evolution is NOT Abiogenesis.

Ever think of how convenient it is that everything we need is found in the dirt and rocks?

Er, not everything we need is found in the dirt and rocks. Breathable oxygen, for example, is not found in rocks and dirt. Not in any manner of source which would sustain us anyhow.

How close to the surface it all is compared to the size of the planet?

You DO realize that there are far vaster reserves of oil, minerals, and other natural resources locked away under the oceans? Do you think Gold or Copper, or Zinc is only found on the surface? Do you have ANY idea how many natural resources are not on land?

Well, neither do we because over 70% of our planet is locked away under an ocean where there is no light, no breathable oxygen, and pressures so great they would pop your head like a grape. But from our submersibles we've also detected some of these vast deposits and have confirmed that traces of Gold, Silver, and Zinc are coming from hydrothermal vents.

Oh.. and duh... to say nothing of the resources buried under glacial ice slabs.

God just loves playin that annoying game of "keep away" with us huh?

Everthing we need has been provided for us. Look around you...everything around you came from the dirt and rocks.

/facepalm

It's only "provided" for us if you make the illogical leap of faith that some invisible magic man in the sky is smiling down upon us giving us everything we could ever need to survive. Flowers, Sunlight, Water, Air ,Smallpox, Cancer, Lepracy, Radiation, Botulism, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, etc... etc..

Oh, and don't forget about the Black Death. God really provided for those filthy European worshipers of his on that one.


[edit on 13-6-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by voices1776



How the plants exhale oxygen we taken in and take in what we exhale? A perfect symbiosis right? This just happened naturally in the environment right?

Yes it did
Plants exhaling Oxygen caused an ecological disaster, which provided an environmental stress for organisms that had mutated to incorporate Oxygen to flourish.

Natural.... Selection. That is why we breath oxygen... because we descended from those creatures which adapted to the new oxygen rich environment.

You say God did not give us clean water? 70 percent of this planet os covered in water. It evaporates and fresh clean water falls from the sky. This is not water purification at it's finest.

And did god give us the buckets, pans, and barrels in which to collect that water? No? Oh, that's right. We had to invent them. Otherwise all that rain water would hit the ground turning into mud. Ever see an African water hole after it rains? Yeah... that's not what I call clean water.

Unfortunately, it doesn't rain with enough regularity to keep our water stocks full. Either we use it too quickly, or it evaporates (god is cruel bastard sometimes I guess). Oh sure, we can stop it from evaporating. Guess how? By understanding water evaporation and intervening.

So "Gods gift of purified water" doesn't amount to jack in the end without human ingenuity to either collect it, or clean it up after it's been on the ground.

Also, rainwater isn't nearly as pure as you think it is. Human water treatment is much more effective.

Let's look at the ocean, for a second, where did all that salt come from? It has it's own built in purification system. If not for the salt, what would this nasty green pond scum covering most of the planet look like?

"Goddidit" huh?
No, not really

This planet has been designed to provide everything we need.

Rather, life on this planet has evolved only to demand what is available. Those life forms which evolved to demand other requirements out of the environment which the environment couldn't provide were selected against. I.E. They have no lineage. Had the environment not selected against the Neanderthal, they would still be here today and you'd be praising them as part of "god's glory and ultimate design".

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Lasheic]

Hey all you IDers, please tell us what part of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover, ID trial do you have a problem with?
The part where the defendants lied that their original intent was always to force public schools to teach their brand of Christianity, or the part where "Dr." Behe's own testimony was used to against him because he was incapable of doing basic arithmetic correctly?

en.wikipedia.org...

You must accept the concept of evidence, before you can accept the concept of justice.

After much thought, I feel that both theories (Creationism/Evolution) have their shortcomings. (BTW, I am quite undecided on the whole debate).

Yes, in terms of the scientific context Evolution appears both logical and rational. In addition much physical evidence has been uncovered that confirms it is very reasonable to conclude that Evolution is actually what has resulted in our existence.

Creationism on the other hand relies heavily on belief - but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing...do you think it is absolutely impossible that there is a higher reality responsible for creating us and all life forms?

The reason I am so undecided on which I consider more "truthful" is because nobody from EITHER side can give me a credible answer to these two questions:

1. Assuming Creationism is correct, how do you explain the reason why humans/animals have been exposed to such evil and horror for thousands of years. Even if this is part of a "bigger plan" by a higher reality (HR), isn't it unfair and immoral on the HR's part not to allow us the capacity to understand why things WILL and NEED to be revealed to existing creatures in this or the next life (if there is one)?

2. Assuming Evolution is correct, how do you explain how things like Air, Water, Stone and Gas have come about? What are the materials that have derived these phenomena? How can two things of nothing (which don't exist) lead to the creation of something that does? What in the whole Universe/Galaxy is logically able to explain how everything has come to exist as it does?

I am aware that question two can also be posed to the Creationist Theory, (how was God created? How did he come about?) Then I think about things like Dreams, Meditation, Feelings and Sensations that cannot accurately be explained in scientific terms alone. Also humanity's very limited understanding of the true nature of consciousness and thoughts.

I'm not trying to deviate from the discussion or trying to confuse anyone - I am just curious whether other people can see where I come from and whether or not they agree.

Forgive me if this has been asked before. My question to creationists is this: If an alien spaceship landed on you lawn today, would you seamlessly integrate it into "God's plan"?
And if so, is there anything that could possibly happen in this universe that would make you reconsider your belief?

reply to post by schrodingers dog


perhaps try making your own thread for a new discussion?

also, if this is a unadulterated question, which you truly intend creationists to contemplate and answer; Might a recomend that you dissuade non-creationists from giving their opinion? Considering the question is not directed towards them?

unless of course it is a rhetorical or loaded question on your part; in which case your post needs no new thread, for it fits quite well in this one.

Originally posted by Eyemagistus
Hey all you IDers, please tell us what part of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover, ID trial do you have a problem with?
The part where the defendants lied that their original intent was always to force public schools to teach their brand of Christianity, or the part where "Dr." Behe's own testimony was used to against him because he was incapable of doing basic arithmetic correctly?

en.wikipedia.org...

You must accept the concept of evidence, before you can accept the concept of justice.

Oh well, lest see how bout the fact that atheist darwinian evolutionists can't seem to defend themselves in any arena be it Science or the Court room without resorting to witness tampering, using manufactured evidence, fabricated data, extortion, intimidation and various other strong arm methods and specious spurious means for furthering their agenda to advance the Godless religion of Atheism in our public schools.

From the scopes trials where Clarence Darrow used manufactured evidence or one of the great aggregation of many such hoax this one named "piltdownman" where the trial should be declared a mis trial or over turned. To those same tactics they had been found guilty again for by the Unted States Senate using Taxpayer Dollars to finance their dirty schemes and machinations like mob thugs.

You site a School Board Member as a liar because he doesn't know much about evolutiion, creationism OR ID and most likely, wasn't salavating like a damn vulture as the evolutionsts were to jump on him for calling one the other. Tell me if ID is Religion than answer me what religion is it?

What gives anyone of you, the right to decide what is Science and what isn't when using such asinine logic as anyone who has ever been discriminated against for their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, it seems Science is the ONLY area where that law doesn't apply.

The puffed up pathetic proslytising pro Darwinists and their molecules to manpanzee methods of obfuscation and deliberate dis-information have been muttering the mantra of the mountain of evidence while i submit colorful adject discriptions does evidence NOT make.

By this standard we should reject the theory of gravity because it was proposed by the “creationist” Sir Issac Newton.

A year ago today, Judge John E. Jones issued his 139-page ruling denouncing intelligent design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. At the time, the ruling was hailed by defenders of Darwin's theory as a knock-out blow against intelligent design and scientific skepticism of Darwin's theory.


What a difference a year makes.

A year after Dover, Darwinists seem increasingly disillusioned as well as shrill, the central part of Judge Jones' "brilliant" decision has been found to be riddled with errors and copied nearly verbatim from the ACLU, a research lab has been launched for scientists to pursue intelligent design-inspired scientific research, and states and localities are continuing to adopt public policies to encourage students to study the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory. At the same time, the stereotype that all critics of Darwin's theory are religiously-motivated zealots while all defenders of the theory are dispassionate scholars who are neutral toward religion has started to implode.

Here are the top developments during the past year



1. The Growing Sense of Defeat among Darwinists. Darwinists like to claim that criticizing Darwin is tantamount to insisting the earth is flat. Yet last time I checked, scientists weren't spending a lot of time in their science journals and at their professional meetings trying to refute the idea of a flat earth. But they are devoting a significant amount of time and energy trying to refute intelligent design. Why? I think the Darwinists' efforts reflect their underlying insecurity. Despite their bluster and bravado, many of them recognize at least implicitly that they are losing the intellectual debate. Last month, for example, there was a gathering of eminent pro-Darwin scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California. According to the New York Times reporter covering the event, there was "a rough consensus" at the meeting that the theory "of evolution by natural selection" is "losing out in the intellectual marketplace." : Let me repeat that statement: there was "a rough consensus" among these pro-Darwin scientists that the theory "of evolution by natural selection" is "losing out in the intellectual marketplace."
" Darwinism is "losing out" not just in the public arena in their view, but "in the intellectual marketplace." That is a stunning admission.



2. The Growing Challenge within Science to Neo-Darwinism. A few weeks before the beginning of the Dover trial last fall, around 400 doctoral scientists had signed Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwin" statement expressing skepticism toward the central claim of Neo-Darwinism. A year after the Dover decision, the number of doctoral scientists affirming the statement is approaching 700. During the Dover trial, there was a constant refrain that scientists who support intelligent design don't do scientific research, but as just reported last week, a research lab has in fact been established to facilitate biological research from the perspective of intelligent design. At the same time, research findings have continued to mount exposing the weaknesses of traditional Darwinism. The very week that the Kitzmiller ruling was issued, biologists admitted in the journal Science that "[t]he phylogenetic relationships among most metazoan phyla remain uncertain" because of conflicts between types of phylogenetic trees. In early 2006, Norwegian cellular biologist, Øyvind Albert Voie published an article in a mainstream scientific journal arguing that "chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals" in the DNA system. Voie concluded that since "mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations," it is "therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans." Two highly-trumpeted "missing links" publicized by Darwinists in 2006, meanwhile, turned out to be much ado about nothing (see here and here).



3. The Implosion of the Kitzmiller Ruling by Judge Jones. A year after Dover, Judge Jones' opinion in Kitzmiller is not wearing well. The book Traipsing into Evolution documents the many errors of fact and analysis in Jones' opinion as well as its overreach in trying to decide whether intelligent design is science, and the recent study co-authored by David DeWolf and myself reveals how Jones' "brilliant" analysis of whether intelligent design is science did not represent his own work but was copied (errors and all) virtually verbatim from language submitted to him by ACLU attorneys. Practically the only defense of Judge Jones' wholesale copying offered thus far has been the false claim that"everyone is doing it," a response that has been too much even for some Darwinists to swallow. It is noteworthy that at least one staunch critic of ID in the legal community has joined ID proponents in taking Judge Jones to task for his judicial opinion's overreach. Boston University law professor Jay Wexler has argued forcefully that "[t]he part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion." (emphasis added)


4. The Persecution of Darwin's Critics. Evidence continues to accumulate that leading Darwinists are trying to win the debate over Darwin's theory through harassment and intimidation rather than reasoned argument and open discussion. Last week's devastating report from congressional investigators documenting the persecution of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian is only the most recent example of the effort to suppress legitimate dissent over Darwin's theory. That report also revealed the unsavory role played by the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in the campaign to smear and persecute Sternberg. In the words of congressional investigators, "[t]he extent to which NMNH officials colluded on government time and with government resources with the NCSE to publicly discredit Dr. Sternberg's scientific and professional integrity and investigate opportunities to dismiss him is alarming."(emphasis added) The more people learn about Darwinist efforts to shut down the debate over Darwinism through harassment and intimidation, the more skeptical they will likely become of the Darwinists' unrelenting dogmatism.



5. Continued Public Policy Efforts to "Teach the Controversy" and Promote Academic Freedom. It is true that in the initial months after the Dover decision, Darwinists were able to use the ruling to bully the Ohio State Board of Education into repealing its excellent science standard and model lesson plan that merely promoted the critical analysis of evolution. Yet in subsequent months, it has become apparent that the Dover ruling has had a decreasing impact on public policy debates over evolution. While some political candidates who favored teaching the controversy over Darwin lost in the recent elections, others won, most notably state board of education members in Texas, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Minnesota. In addition, states and localities have continued to advance science education policies that encourage schools to teach the controversy over Darwinian evolution. In March, Oklahoma's House of Representatives passed a bill to protect the academic freedom of teachers and students to study all of the scientific evidence relating to evolution by an overwhelming (and bipartisan) vote of 77-10. The bill was later denied a vote in the state Senate, but it will likely be reintroduced. Also in March, the Lancaster School District in California passed a policy protecting the right of teachers to present scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution. In June, South Carolina adopted a science standard requiring students to learn how "scientists… investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." At the end of November, the Ouachita Parish School District in Louisiana enacted a policy that protects the academic freedom of teachers to objectively cover scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution as well as the evidence in favor of the theory. And according to a national Zogby poll conducted earlier this year, nearly 7 out of 10 Americans (69%) continue to believe that "biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 2 out of 10 (21%) believe that "biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it." This is virtually unchanged from a national Zogby poll in 2001, and the rates of support are even higher in some state surveys.


6. The Debate over Darwin Goes Global.
Darwinists often insist that the debate over Darwin's theory is limited to the United States, but recent outbreaks of the debate in Britain, Japan, and various European countries have refuted that claim, as do the growing number of international scientists who have signed the Dissent from Darwin statement.


7. The Darwinist War on Religion. For years the National Center for Science Education has tried to convince leading Darwinists to tone down their anti-religious rhetoric and cultivate the impression that Darwin's theory of unguided evolution is perfectly compatible with traditional monotheism. But this fall the public relations strategy has unraveled with books like Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and conclaves like the gathering of scientists at the Salk Institute in November, which overflowed with expressions of hatred and contempt toward religion. According to one participant in the latter gathering quoted in the New York Times, "with a few notable exceptions, the viewpoints at the conference have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?" (emphasis added) It is becoming sharply evident just how much Darwinism functions like a religion for many of its leading champions, and how the blind allegiance to atheism or agnosticism of leading Darwinists skews their evaluation of the debate over evolution. Ironically, Darwinists routinely criticize defenders of intelligent design because many of them happen to be traditional theists (just like the vast majority of Americans), but these same Darwinists see nothing wrong with the fact that leading evolutionists are largely anti-religious. Indeed, according to a 1998 survey of members of the elite National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95% of the NAS biologists identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics.


As I've said repeatedly before, the debate over Darwin's theory should be decided on the evidence, not on motives. But if Darwinists insist on stigmatizing the motives of anyone who criticizes Darwin's theory who happens to believe in God, then the Darwinists' own motives surely should be open to scrutiny. Either motives are irrelevant for everyone, or they are relevant for everyone. As public knowledge of the metaphysical baggage of leading Darwinists increases, the ability of Darwinists to maintain their double-standard about motives in the public debate should diminish.


In summarizing my reflections on the past year, I keep coming back to a phrase that stuck in my mind immediately after the Dover decision last December: Pyrrhic victory. Darwinists thought they had succeeded in shutting down the debate over intelligent design by court order.

But they were wrong, and the longer it takes for them to grasp that fact, the more Darwinism will continue to lose out in the free marketplace of ideas.

www.ntskeptics.org...

Judge copied ACLU in anti-intelligent design ruling


Study: 90% of 'masterpiece' Dover opinion
error-filled 'cut-and-paste' job by 'activist'verbatim

This is the Science Community people! The alleged rational logical critical thinking elitist so scared that all those tons and tons of evidence covering the mountain of even more evidence so rigorously tested and supported by the so called "Scientific Method" should not be a bit nervous about sharing what they got but they never do. The garbage they have from finches, peppered moths, javaman lucy featherd dinoaurs misleading artists renderings and neanderthals made from a pigs tooth not to mention the fact that this theory is impossible to test and observe without a long long leap of faith and a fundamentalist Atheist fancy for fiction fabricated by the faction of Darwinian Dolts whose theory they are so scared will be exposed as the huge hoax that it has always been.

Not a week a month at best goes by where I see yet another recanted view by National Geographic where they have found another half bird half lizard branded and bound boned "thing" being passed off as a transitional form when it is nothing more than another transitional faux, another intentional hoax by an Atheist controlled Science community

They now rate one notch above used car sales man

Our Science Students have fell behind others as a direct result of indoctrinating them with Bunk Science

If Evolution had anything compelling to show than

SHOW ME THE MOUNTAIN Otherwise get out of our Schools with that junk science that pseudo intellectual sillyness for you have failed,,

long enough

- Con

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Forgive me if this has been asked before. My question to creationists is this: If an alien spaceship landed on you lawn today, would you seamlessly integrate it into "God's plan"?
And if so, is there anything that could possibly happen in this universe that would make you reconsider your belief?

Forgive me if this has been asked before. My question to creationists is this: If an alien spaceship landed on you lawn today, would you seamlessly integrate it into "God's plan"?

It already is integrated into "the plan"

And if so, is there anything that could possibly happen in this universe that would make you reconsider your belief?

Like what for example?

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Study: 90% of 'masterpiece' Dover opinion
error-filled 'cut-and-paste' job by 'activist'verbatim

Heh, cut and paste job. Accusations of plagiarism. Pot meets kettle?

You mean the judge used the 'proposed findings of fact', which is normal procedure in court cases in your country?

The Discovery Institute’s attempt to call Judge Jones a plagiarist for his decision in Kitzmiller was a publicity stunt, and it flopped. Nobody fell for it because it was easy to confirm the fact that judges follow proposed findings of fact all the time—that this is a routine and even a praiseworthy practice—and that the DI’s “statistics” were essentially invented, by using such weasel words as “virtually verbatim.” Moreover, we showed that their attempt to prove that courts disapprove of the practice was silliness. The cases they cited to not only did not show that Jones did anything wrong, but in some instances, were examples of routine creationist quote mining. For example, Mr. Luskin cited to Bright, but we showed that Bright said pretty much the opposite of what he claimed it said.

The DI Phails...again

"Smithsonian's top officials permit the demotion..."

Sternberg was never even a paid employee at the Smithsonian.

As punishment for this heinous crime, Sternberg suffered the indignity of not getting fired from the unpaid editorship that he had quit months before the paper actually appeared. His punishment further included the cruel and unusual steps of not dismissing him from his unpaid position as a Smithsonian Research Associate, not declining to renew the unpaid position when the term expired, and not firing him from his paid job at NIH. The draconian nature of the consequences that he ultimately suffered - some of his colleagues said bad things about him - obviously makes him the ideal example of an open-thinking scientist railroaded by the Darwinian Inquisition.

The DI Phails... yet again

Keystone Creationists.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by melatonin]

ok. I just want to say that i believe in science and evolution AND i also believe in God. All you hardcore scientists crack me up if you say there is no god, i mean its really funny! check this; when a scientist 'crosses his fingers' in the hope his experiment is a success, who or what the hell is he 'hoping' to? holla...

Originally posted by v4vendetta
ok. I just want to say that i believe in science and evolution AND i also believe in God. All you hardcore scientists crack me up if you say there is no god, i mean its really funny! check this; when a scientist 'crosses his fingers' in the hope his experiment is a success, who or what the hell is he 'hoping' to? holla...

I don't know many who do 'cross fingers', we tend to wear our 'lucky' underwear.

Seriously, part of human psychology is to have a tendency for magical thinking - been shown many times in psychological studies. It's something you can work to diminish though.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Study: 90% of 'masterpiece' Dover opinion
error-filled 'cut-and-paste' job by 'activist'verbatim

Heh, cut and paste job. Accusations of plagiarism. Pot meets kettle?

Nope nice try mel but I barely got the whole quote in the box without the [/e] but if you are that desperate sue me. thats why I didnt put my name under it "-con" that didnt fit either.

You mean the judge used the 'proposed findings of fact', which is normal procedure in court cases in your country?

You call that "Normal"! Taking the opposing litigants (ACLU) statment verbatim and using it as his own 30 days before the trial ended!

Then misrepresenting the ID witnesses statments! The Judge didn't even know what the hell he was saying he even left the typos in it. Then he said ID isn't Science JUST like you Atheists wanted him to.

What the matter mel, you couldn't trust the Judge to say the right thing on his own. He didn't use the proposed facts, he used the Atheists opinions just like he was told to. When was the last time you seen a landmark court case where the Judge was so derelict in his duty as an Officer of the court to make upp his mind about statements the other litigants in a trial an entire month prior to the final ruling. Looks to me like he had his mind made up long before this trial was underway. Besides that the history Atheist Darwinian evolutionist have for fraud, lies, intimidation, discrimination, unprofessional ethics, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if that judge wasn't bought. The millions of deaths caused by hitler and stalin and pol pot where Atheists have out lawed Religion and millions have died at the hands of these atheist regimes

The fact is, it is already case law setting the precedent to allow every theory into Science, that no voice, no matter what others think of it as science or not should be kept out of science.

You know, the same way Clarence Darrow argued it in for evolution during scopes.

Did you read the senate report Mel? Is it customary for the smithsonian to stonewall then use tax dollars to spy on people? He wasn't a paid employee? That wasn't how they discriminated against him mel. This is about peer review and the kind of discrimination the ACLU fought against to get TOE into schools but I now it seems all they do is fight to keep anyone else OUT.

That was no publicity stunt or is this just more "science correcting itself"

the ever lieing illusion of evolution,

see any new species today??

No??

- Con

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Con, con, con. Species don't naturally evolve instantaneously, it takes thousands to millions to billions of years.

Actually, wait! Check this out! Pretty neat! Since we are sentient beings and we are understanding how evolution works, we are creating our own species! Enjoy!

Synthetic DNA: Scientists on the brink of creating new life forms

Notice the date? This was nearly 7 full months ago according to the Western modern traditional 12 month calendar.

Monday, December 17, 2007; A01

It has been 50 years since scientists first created DNA in a test tube, stitching ordinary chemical ingredients together to make life's most extraordinary molecule. Until recently, however, even the most sophisticated laboratories could make only small snippets of DNA -- an extra gene or two to be inserted into corn plants, for example, to help the plants ward off insects or tolerate drought.

Now researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier: the creation of life forms driven by completely artificial DNA.

Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome -- a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce.

In the coming year, they hope to transplant it into a cell, where it is expected to "boot itself up," like software downloaded from the Internet, and cajole the waiting cell to do its bidding. And while the first synthetic chromosome is a plagiarized version of a natural one, others that code for life forms that have never existed before are already under construction.

It is advised that for a better understanding of the article, before replying, that you click on the link and read the entire article.

New species anyone? Actually I'm watching evolution right before my eyes!

Originally posted by melatonin
[Sternberg was never even a paid employee at the Smithsonian.

As punishment for this heinous crime, Sternberg suffered the indignity of not getting fired from the unpaid editorship that he had quit months before the paper actually appeared. His punishment further included the cruel and unusual steps of not dismissing him fro his unpaid position as a Smithsonian Research Associate, not decliningm to renew the unpaid position when the term expired, and not firing him from his paid job at NIH. The draconian nature of the consequences that he ultimately suffered - some of his colleagues said bad things about him - obviously makes him the ideal example of an open-thinking scientist railroaded by the Darwinian Inquisition.

The DI Phails... yet again

Dont talk as if the Darwinists were so gracious to let hiim stay THEY HAD to as they were TOLD to BACK OFF and THAT'S why he didn't get fired from his "job" they wouldn't even pay the guy for but have the nerve to shame him as if they gave him a break! HA HA

Ill take the sentate report over your wikiedited fable mel

- Con

Daft Darwinists



[edit on 14-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by melatonin

Except my answers were essentially right. We have god poofing stuff into existence, and the flud laying down fossils in particular order (i.e. specific gravity), and, of course, science being the sux0rz.

Hey, the religious are'nt the only ones to claim that stuff just poofed into existence.
How is the big bang theory any different to stuff just poofing into existences. Or the miraculous emergence of life from a primordial soup. Hmmmm......very scientific.....very observable.

I think another angle that could be brought up is that DNA is the PILLAR(see double helix) or conerstone on which life is built. I know Mr Dawkins and friends claim that DNA has 97% junk material. Perhaps this as yet know element or junk has the key to Evolution inside its coded language of life. Are there inbuilt mechanisms in DNA of mutation that have spawned all the life we see and the variety thereof. This could also explain the fossil records show creatures and life that we don't see in other periods.

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Heh, cut and paste job. Accusations of plagiarism. Pot meets kettle?

Nope nice try mel but I barely got the whole quote in the box without the [/e] but if you are that desperate sue me. thats why I didnt put my name under it "-con" that didnt fit either.

Eh? I'm not talking about now, you've actually worked on this issue. Well done.

You call that "Normal"! Taking the opposing litigants (ACLU) statment verbatim and using it as his own 30 days before the trial ended!

Oh give up the faux shock. Using 'proposed findings of fact' is normal. It wasn't verbatim either.

Then he said ID isn't Science JUST like you Atheists wanted him to.

I'm sure many atheists were chuffed. But I know for a fact so were many theists. If we use the higher level inclusive category, it was people who fight for the integrity of science and science education who were pushing for this outcome.

What the matter mel, you couldn't trust the Judge to say the right thing on his own.

What the christian republican-appointed judge did is normal procedure.

Get over it. ID is one big slice of phail pie. You ate it up like the greedy creationist you are, now you need to excrete it. The constipation is clouding your thinking.

Try some prunes.

I ignored all the even more repetitive boring stuff.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Ill take the sentate report over your wikiedited fable mel

A senate report motivated by another creationist hoodwinked by ID.

- Con

Daft Darwinists

I like the word daft. Reminds me of my dad, he used to use the word a lot.

Cheers, con.

Did you read the senate report Mel? Is it customary for the smithsonian to stonewall then use tax dollars to spy on people? He wasn't a paid employee? That wasn't how they discriminated against him mel. This is about peer review and the kind of discrimination the ACLU fought against to get TOE into schools but I now it seems all they do is fight to keep anyone else OUT.

How did they discriminate against him? He has the exact same position as before. He never lost his job. He still works for the NIH.

People will be concerned about scientists who use their editorship to subvert the process of peer-review and publish creationist screeds in completely inappropriate venues. Of course people are going to talk about it and think he's an underhand idiot.

It's the issue of integrity.

Creationists: they haz none.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Hey, the religious are'nt the only ones to claim that stuff just poofed into existence.
How is the big bang theory any different to stuff just poofing into existences. Or the miraculous emergence of life from a primordial soup. Hmmmm......very scientific.....very observable.

The big bang theory is not science.

The big bang theory is in fact another mechanism of creationists and the religious.

Physics directly refutes and contradicts this scenerio in stating that energy is eternal; neither created nor destroyed. Eternity is also not only a measure of time, but a measure of space, since space-time are one. Space had no beginning and will have no end. Time had no beginning and will have no end, and energy permeates and is space/time.

ok here is my take on this tread, by the way I can descripe myself something like half creationist half evolutionist as strange as it sound.The thing that boders me is why evolutionist's always come upas proof for evolution whith some suposebly evolved spicies and some other spicies and say you see this thing came from that thing its enough that they look similar[in some cases] to connect them , but what about the transitional form which can present more clearly their connection and they say well you know its hard for some dead body to become fossil but we know that they are somewhere out their its just a question of time to find them.If that's so wouldn't there be more transitional forms then the supposed final product and its supposed predecessor if evolution takes milions of years