Summations Only

How can you expect me to understand this? It's written in a foreign language! Regardless, it would no doubt be based on facts that any creation-believing biologist would agree with. Such facts lead to either a conclusion of common descent or a conclusion of a common Creator, depending on which philosophical camp one belongs to. In other words, SIFTER will produce results regardless of how anyone thinks life came to be - because it depends on scientific facts, not on a subjective and irrelevant view of history. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Firstly, the fact that you consider it possible that science could one day produce life from dead matter says a lot about your grip on reality. It comes as no surprise therefore, that such a mentality can accommodate the fantasy of evolution.Secondly, I've got better things to do than speculate the about repercussions of an absurd impossibility.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Ok. Wow. That's ... deep.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

So you're just avoiding thinking about it.You're the equivalent to a pre-Darwin creationist - you'll be in for a big shock when molecular biologists create the first life form and you'll spend an enormous amount of energy denying it. Then you'll try to rationalise it. If you're lucky you won't live long enough to see it.

quote:

---

Scientists have announced that they have created living organisms using an expanded genetic code. That could in turn lead to the creation of entirely new lifeforms, using combinations of DNA that couldn't possible have existed before.

​

Two researchers created a bacterium that not only uses the four natural bases, but also uses a pair of synthetic ones known as X and Y. In doing so, the researchers say that they have been able to "lay the foundation for achieving the central goal of synthetic biology: the creation of new life forms and functions".

---

Scientists create new life form in a lab, altering the fundamentals of DNA | The Independent | The IndependentEven this first step is problematic for your beliefs. This is an entirely new lifeform - one that your mythical creator did not create.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

It's an hypothesis, and we can study the various ways it may have occurred, but I don't know if we'll ever know what did occur. What we know is 4 billion years ago the evidence shows no sign of life, but at 3.5 billion years ago there is signs of life with fully developed cells (the first fossil evidence).We also know that there are many pre-biotic molecules in space, likely product of novas.
Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)We also know that there are many self-replicating molecules
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)Enjoy

Please follow rule 6 for the forum guidelines:

6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

Also, please place any cut-n-pasted material inside quote codes, either [quote] or [qs], so that people can know which are your words and which are not.Thanks!

Ha ha, so true. Same superstition but without the creative Mind, and they actually believe it! It's obviously impossible but "science" has no problem with such an impossibility while calling the reasonable explanation of a Creator a superstition. "Science" even claims to "know" things that are nothing but outlandish interpretations of observed facts that are open to other interpretations. What you "know" is only that certain rocks you've very probably erroneously dated to 3.5 billion years ago contain no signs of life. That's ALL you know, that there is no hint of life in those particular rocks. The rest is sheer mental castle-building. And of course the term "pre-biotic" is another piece of wishful thinking and nothing more than that. What's the actual observation here? The observation is something identified as "self-replicating molecules." THAT is what is wishfully interpreted as "pre-biotic." Molecules are not life, but here we have a title pretending it might as well be: "Life's Building Blocks." Golly "science" is so rigorous isn't it? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Science, done properly, is never wrong as far as we can tell. You mention "other" interpretations and I personally don't know enough to even hold court in these topics, but I am learning one thing from my own field of research on diet, diabetes, and health---There is usually a consensus on evidence---even if it is not acknowledged.Why would the dating of rocks be erroneous? what other information do we have on the age of these rocks that can be applied to our discernment?

Enjoy

Nutrition related to disease is an area where you should ultimately be able to get reliable results if you set up the experiment properly, because it is NOT merely a matter of interpretation as the age of the earth and the meaning of signs of life existing or not existing in particular rocks. There is no way to test your interpretation from the distant past but there should be ways of testing anything in the present. Nutrition is a pretty unwieldy area though, that's true enough, and does involve interpretation at many points, but the point here is that there's always the possibility of correcting your errors through more research. And that is not true of the sciences of the distant past.As a YEC I can say that the life found or not found in particular rocks shows the effects of the Flood -- the life forms found in rocks all lived at the same time before the Flood and all died at the same time in the Flood and got buried in different rocks. Nothing to do with successive time periods. That's an interpretation too but I have a written document from the past for support at least. And there are some tests that have been done that fit with the Flood, but it's not like a science where all the information is in the present, which means that it's all there if you can figure out how to set up a test to find out what it means. But again, there's no way to replicate a one-time event like a worldwide Flood so when it comes to the distant past there are built-in handicaps that aren't the problem for a study that's all in the present like nutrition.I'm interested in your thread about diet by the way. I know what I need to do for health and weight loss and I've done it in the past, my problem these days is more about motivation, though I do want to follow the information you want to cover in your thread. The more these things get discussed the more I may be willing to try out some new approaches.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And true.

Translation: "it can't be old age because if was old age then it couldn't be young and and if it wasn't young age then I would have to be wrong, but I am never wrong, so it must be young age and the old age must be wrong, I don't know how or why the evidence is so massive for old age but my interpretation is the earth is young so they must all be wrong, because I can't be wrong ...." etc etc etc etc ad nauseum for over 500 posts in every thread ...The other interpretation is magic-god-did-it-to-fool-you.Enjoy

The evidence for old age is hardly "massive," it's all radiometric dating. All Hutton did was make up a scenario out of thin air, and that's the only other "evidence" for old age.There IS evidence for the Flood, and I continue to think it really funny that such obvious evidence as sedimentary strata and bazillions of fossils is just flatly refused while the absurd and impossible interpretation of time periods assigned to various blocks of strata is treated as reasonable. This sort of "science" really is laughable. Oh, also that wishfulness that calls the non-life of replicating molecules "building blocks of life." Where there is no evidence just make it up. The most complex variables of REAL science on the other hand, such as the nutritional studies Phat is talking about, may be difficult, but ultimately they should be resolvable, unlike the sciences of the past for which most of the information is irretrievably lost.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fact that you hand-wave it says a lot about your grip on chemistry.Again. Non-living matter is not dead. The only difference between living and non-living is chemistry.

Sure it is. The young-earthers will tell you that science keeps changing the age of the earth. It's getting closer and closer to the "right" answer but it has to get a lot of "wrong" answers along the way. The best that science can ever do is the current best estimate of "right".