US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

breitbart.com ^ | Jan 24 02:44 PM US/Eastern | AFP

[Jeff Gordon]

US scientists have taken a major step toward creating the first ever artificial life form by synthetically reproducing the DNA of a bacteria, according to a study published Thursday.

The move, which comes after five years of research, is seen as the penultimate stage in the endeavour to create an artificial life form based entirely on a man-made DNA genome -- something which has tantalised scientists and sci-fi writers for years.

"Through dedicated teamwork we have shown that building large genomes is now feasible and scalable so that important applications such as biofuels can be developed," said Hamilton Smith, from the J. Craig Venter Institute, in the study published in Science.

The research has been carried out at the laboratories of the controversial celebrity US scientist Craig Venter, who has hailed artificial life forms as a potential remedy to illness and global warming.

However, the prospect of engineering artificial life forms is highly controversial and is likely to arouse heated debate over the ethics and potential ramifications of such an advance.

It is one of the Holy Grails of science, but also one that stirs deep fears as forseen in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel "Brave New World" in which natural human reproduction is eschewed in favor of babies grown artificially in laboratories.

Venter said in a statement: "This extraordinary accomplishment is a technological marvel that was only made possible because of the unique and accomplished ... team."

His researchers had "dedicated the last several years to designing and perfecting new methods and techniques that we believe will become widely used to advance the field of synthetic genomics," he added.

Lead author Dan Gibson said the team had completed the second step in a three-step process to create a synthetic organism.

[Rick.Donaldson]

That’s fine, I’m not arguing that point. I’m arguing the point that *I* simplified the statement because most people here don’t want to bother to actually READ and UNDERSTAND science.

As far as “fallacy of evolutionism” — how do you know it is false? Are you basing your entire premise on the Bible and the first line of the Bible, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

If so.... you’re basing what you know entirely on a belief system which you’ve chosen. Who is to say you’re right and the evolutionists are incorrect?

The difference IS simple. Creationism is based solely on BELIEF with nothing but the word of God upon which to base those beliefs.

Evolution at least has some basis in scientific FACTS. That an Evolutionist wishes to belief his/her own idealism, and DISBELIEVE someone else’s is their problem, not mine.

So, don’t sit there and tell me about “fallacies” in scientific studies when there’s absolute NO evidence whatsoever that God did what the Bible says he did - without something other than Faith Alone to back you up.

[Rick.Donaldson]

This doesn’t disprove god, to the contrary. This actually gives good evidence that god exists.

This is the MOST correct statement I've ever heard. God does exist. But, the arguments that folks try to lay on everyone are based solely upon Faith and Belief systems which do not represent facts in most cases. They represent un-proven theory. Just as many of you say that evolution is "un-proven" which may indeed be true, but not an entirely accurate statement. Evolution, at least is a theory with some foundations. Beliefs are simply beliefs (particularly beliefs that the Bible is 'accurate' - but without any foundation other than taking on faith that the Bible is the Word of God).

[Rick.Donaldson]

I think the ONE thing all of you are missing here, and the most important to me is...

CAN WE EAT IT.

[Sopater]

The difference IS simple. Creationism is based solely on BELIEF with nothing but the word of God upon which to base those beliefs.

Evolution at least has some basis in scientific FACTS. That an Evolutionist wishes to belief his/her own idealism, and DISBELIEVE someone else’s is their problem, not mine.

Actually, both are based solely on BELIEF and the FACTS can be interpreted to support either BELIEF system. If you like, please share your favorite scientific FACT that is a basis for evolution.

[Right Brother]

Let's see...hmmmmm....using all available advanced technology and intellect, scientists spend years trying to synthesize life in the simplest and most primitive form. Yet a mindless force (evolution) haphazardly stumbles upon creating a virtually endless variety of complex life on earth without the aid of intellect or technology. Makes perfect sense to me.

The science of evolution is not unlike that of global warming. Someone gets the ball rolling by positing an intriguing but false premise and everyone starts to jump on the bandwagon, continuously making new 'discoveries' that further support the premise.

When a creation scientist such as Behe proposes a theory such as irreducible complexity, he is scoffed at by the 'enlightened' scientific community in much the same way as "Global Warming Deniers" are ridiculed.

Evolution is accepted as not a theory, but as fact. It is taught as such from grammar school through college. Why? Well, gee wiz, there are scientific 'facts' to support it.

Global warming is also treated as fact. It too has scientific 'facts' supporting it. In fact, the supporting evidence is so overwhelming, that the federal and state governments, with the utmost urgency, are making liberty-robbing laws to remedy it.

With all the supporting scientific evidence, do you believe in man-made global warming? I mean, could the science be possibly wrong?

[Rick.Donaldson]

Actually, both are based solely on BELIEF and the FACTS can be interpreted to support either BELIEF system. If you like, please share your favorite scientific FACT that is a basis for evolution.

/sigh.

No, they aren't both based on "belief". And there are NO facts that can be proved in the Bible, not especially in Genesis. Sorry. How about you show ME your evidence for facts first, since you started this discussion and are evidently unable to do any research on your own regarding science.

I'll share one important aspect of evolution - but before I do, let me point out that I'm neither an evolutionist, nor am I a Creationist. I'm merely an observer.

Evolution is the change in traits (specifically genetic traits) that are inherited from one generation to the next, or even many generations later. It is a fact, a known fact, that the average lifespan of human beings in prehistory was not much more than 30 years old. This can be judged by bones and other tissues discovered. The average lifespan of a human being today is roughly 70. That lifespan has increased in the last 100 years alone from about 50 to 68. That's a fact. (Yes, I know you will say that life is easier on us, that's true too, but it is also a contributing factor to extended life).

A second example of this is height in men. Men in medieval Europe were roughly 5'4" or 5'5" on average. A 6' tall man was a giant. Prior to that, Europeans had an average height of 5'9" and actually got smaller for some reason. (That reason is simple genetics, which is directly responsible for evolution).

In the past 45 YEARS alone, Americans have grown an inch taller (on average) than those who were born prior to my time. (However, they also got a lot fatter... less exercise). These are examples of "evolution".

While I certainly understand your reluctance to accept the fact that science indeed has measurements it can perform to prove things, and your similar reluctance to accept that "beliefs are just beliefs" (which are sometimes based on nothing BUT FAITH) - your insistence that science isn't any "better" than religion is simply an argument to attempt to make science look bad.

I'm not saying that either is better or worse than the other - I'm simply stating facts. Science uses measurements, and proofs to cause acceptance. Religion uses FAITH to cause acceptance. There's a big difference in the methods and sometimes both are wrong, both are right and sometimes one is RIGHT and the other is plain wrong.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Yet a mindless force (evolution) haphazardly stumbles upon creating a virtually endless variety of complex life on earth without the aid of intellect or technology.

I never made such a statement, you did. Don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't think life 'started' haphazardly. I never said it did, I've never ONCE stated what my personal 'beliefs' are related to this. I'm having a discussion.

But, I'll give you this, you're right, science has tried for years to synthesize life... however, those "years" you're talking about are within the last 50 years only. Since the 1950s. Fifty years is a long time to you and I. It's not a long time as natural forces go. IF, indeed humans are able at some point to create in the lab (under I might add, controlled conditions eliminating all outside influences) a substance that mimics the seven particular parameters I mentioned, then 1) it wasn't a waste of time, 2) it was a SHORT period of time, and 3) it is a magnificent achievement --- your personal feelings, notwithstanding.

The science of evolution is not unlike that of global warming.

That is your assumption and opinion. First off, global warming is nothing at all like evolution. "Global warming" is a new theory, invented in recent years by people who made mistakes on temperature charts. Even the guys who did the original paper on global warming know and admitted to mistakes and have even stated the were wrong. The rest of the dumbasses on the global warming bandwagon are political Leftists trying their best to ruin capitalism, because they want this to be a socialist world.

Evolution was coined in 1850s by Darwin, based upon honest scientific study, most of which has WITHSTOOD the test of time and experimentation.

The theory of Evolution is based upon Darwinian theory, but has been accepted by modern science and the general public - not force fed to them, but accepted because the explanation for evolution makes sense. Nothing MAGIC to it. Nothing SUPERNATURAL. Just Natural. Creationism assumes the Supernatural, beyond nature, beyond the norm. It takes a belief system to accept ghosts, and creation stories, and even God, whereas something that is tangible and able to be tested and seen is easier to accept.

Sorry, but because of time constraints I can't answer everything... however,:

With all the supporting scientific evidence, do you believe in man-made global warming? I mean, could the science be possibly wrong?

In reverse order, sure science has been wrong on many things, numerous times, and wrong on the same thing more than once. It takes a lot of time to winnow out the nonsense. No, I don't "believe" in global warming - and I'll state this again, flawed scientific data is not the same as ACCURATE scientific data. There are NO facts to support man-made global warming and your statement that it is 'treated as fact' is accurate only in those people who BELIEVE it. With the leftists in the world that are fighting Capitalism, it is a RELIGION and they refuse to listen to real scientific facts and instead chose to ignore that information and BELIEVE the nonsense they pass among themselves.

On the other hand, there are indeed facts to support that the Earth has gone through several periods of heating and cooling over its lifespan of several billion years, and they are all part of a natural cycle. The SUN goes through a natural 22 year cycle (and an 11 year sunspot cycle) and that, friend is a proven FACT. The Earth has had several Ice Ages. Not one, several. I'm sure that if the climate is currently heating up then it is part of a natural cycle (and we've probably reached a peak, and in another 15000 years, we'll be in another ice age. You and I won't be here to find out though).

Lastly, I've already said it several times, but once more would be beneficial to those of you not reading all the material I write... Global warming is based on bad science. And Bad science is simply BAD SCIENCE. It might be wrong, and eventually the public and people who are less than scientifically inclined will eventually reach the same conclusion.

[Sopater]

And there are NO facts that can be proved in the Bible, not especially in Genesis.

This is a bold absolute statement that can be easily disqualified. For the sake of our discussion, I'll assume that you are limiting your statement to the creation story and concede that it cannot be scientifically "proved". However, I'll say the same for the evolution story. So far then, both are on equal grounds, neither can be "proved".

How about you show ME your evidence for facts first, since you started this discussion and are evidently unable to do any research on your own regarding science.

Actually, I stated that both were based on belief and that the facts could be interpreted to support either belief system. Therefore I don't have to show you my evidence, because I rely on the same evidence that evolutionists rely on. Scientifically, ALL of the evidence must support the truth.

Evolution is the change in traits (specifically genetic traits) that are inherited from one generation to the next, or even many generations later.

Actually, this is a gross oversimplification of evolution. By this definition, if two blonde-haired parents have a redheaded child, that's evolution due to a change in genetic trait. Any birth defect that can be passed on to a child would be evolution. For true evolution to occur, such that changes bacteria into humans, genetic information must be increased that reflects the increase in complexity associated with a new evolved species. There is no scientific evidence that this has ever occurred.

It is a fact, a known fact, that the average lifespan of human beings in prehistory was not much more than 30 years old.

Wrong. It is a theory that is based on the limited number of prehistoric bones and tissues that have been found, and assumptions that have been made based on what we know about bones and other tissues today. There is no way to scientifically "prove" that the average lifespan of human beings in prehistory was any closer to 30 years than it was to 300 years.

The average lifespan of a human being today is roughly 70. That lifespan has increased in the last 100 years alone from about 50 to 68. That's a fact. (Yes, I know you will say that life is easier on us, that's true too, but it is also a contributing factor to extended life).

I'll concede to that, but it doesn't prove anything regarding human evolution. The average lifespan of humans after being diagnosed with cancer has greatly increased in that same time span. Not due to any changes in genetic traits.

A second example of this is height in men. Men in medieval Europe were roughly 5'4" or 5'5" on average. A 6' tall man was a giant. Prior to that, Europeans had an average height of 5'9" and actually got smaller for some reason. (That reason is simple genetics, which is directly responsible for evolution).

That reason is "genetic variation", which has nothing to do with evolution. No new information or increase in complexity is associated with variation within a genetic kind.

While I certainly understand your reluctance to accept the fact that science indeed has measurements it can perform to prove things, and your similar reluctance to accept that "beliefs are just beliefs" (which are sometimes based on nothing BUT FAITH) - your insistence that science isn't any "better" than religion is simply an argument to attempt to make science look bad.

I understand and accept the fact that science has measurements it can perform to prove things, however I also recognize the limits of what those measurements can tell us. I don't believe that science is any better than religion, just different. I also consider it intellectual dishonesty to ignore the limits of science in order to assert a religious belief as fact. Science is merely a tool used to methodically observe and understand the world around us. I have no intention of trying to make it "look bad". Science is good, and is only useful when the limitations are understood and respected. Although you claim to be neither a evolutionist or a creationist, I can understand your reluctance to accept the fact that you have been consistently bombarded with atheistic and agnostic propaganda in the name of science. However, none of your "facts" are convincing proof that evolutionism is any less of a religion than any other faith-based belief system.

I conclude then that you have no "facts" that form a basis for evolutionism. I have no "facts" that form a basis for creationism besides the fact that it is told in the Bible. I concede that creation is my belief based on faith in the bible, but concur that evolution is nothing more than the same based on faith that the bible is wrong. I thank you for engaging in a little friendly dialog on this subject. Have a great day.

[RussP]

“No, they aren’t both based on “belief”. And there are NO facts that can be proved in the Bible, not especially in Genesis. Sorry.”

I don’t have time to get into this now, but I suggest you take a look at http://reasons.org, the website of an organization called Reasons To Believe. This organization was founded some twenty years ago or so by a astronomer named Hugh Ross, Ph.D., who believes, and argues persuasively, that the Book of Genesis is actually perfectly consistent with out knowledge of the origin of the universe.

No, he does not argue for literal 24-hour creation days. In fact, he shows that such an interpretation is simply the misguided result of a mistranslation of the original Hebrew text.

What is very interesting is that the theory of the Big Bang was only reluctantly accepted by many in the “scientific” community because it seemed to favor the biblical idea of creation over the prevailing scientific idea of a steady-state universe with no beginning in time.

[bmwcyle]

Revelation 13 The Beast out of the Earth 11Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon. 12He exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. 14Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

[RightWhale]

This is BS now and it was BS a month ago in the first volley of threads.

[Rick.Donaldson]

This is a bold absolute statement that can be easily disqualified. For the sake of our discussion, I'll assume that you are limiting your statement to the creation story and concede that it cannot be scientifically "proved". However, I'll say the same for the evolution story. So far then, both are on equal grounds, neither can be "proved".

I am speaking only of the Creation story. It's a STORY. Period. And again, you're completely wrong, they are not on equal grounds. I gave you some examples of 'evolution', I'm sorry you refuse to accept the facts at face value and continue to apply some notion that somehow a "STORY" is a story and scientific theory that has had some proofs and measures accomplished is somehow the same as a story.

Actually, I stated that both were based on belief and that the facts could be interpreted to support either belief system. Therefore I don't have to show you my evidence, because I rely on the same evidence that evolutionists rely on. Scientifically, ALL of the evidence must support the truth.

Umm.. NO, I'm not going to allow you to get away with this ridiculous statement. "Truth"? What do you mean by "truth"? I had this same damned argument with a Conspiracy theorist, who claimed "My truth is different than your truth"... we're not talking about "Truth" in a religious sense. We're talking about FACTS. Facts ARE truth, they don't SUPPORT the truth, they don't point to the truth. The TRUTH IS "Creationism" is a story, and it is told in 25 or 30 different languages, in similar terms, with similar stories, including the Bible. That's not "truth", that's a story.

Evolution has many FACTS which in and of themselves are truths. They do not necessarily prove evolutionism BEYOND a DOUBT. You have your doubts (and for that matter SO DO I). But, don't try to tell me that evolutionists (and I'm talking scientists) support their "belief" based on beliefs. That's False. They 'believe' that evolution is true based on factual evidence obtained in scientific studies. That's a lot different from "faith alone".

Actually, this is a gross oversimplification of evolution

Actually NO, it isn't a gross oversimplification. You're trying to make it more complex by adding in whatever you feel is appropriate for your argument. The discussion thread is about man creating a lifeform. You're the one throwing all the other stuff into the argument to complicate it. The defintion of evolution as defined by princeton's dictionary is:

# S: (n) development, evolution (a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)) "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"

# S: (n) evolution, organic evolution, phylogeny, phylogenesis ((biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms)

We're talking about the second one.

Wikipedia defines evolution as: In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next.

I will point you to this statement and link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28term%29

"One of the main sources of confusion and ambiguity in the creation-evolution debate is the definition of evolution itself. In the context of biology, evolution is simply the genetic change in populations of organisms over successive generations."

The word has many different definitions, but we are directly discussing one of those definitions. At least I am, you're the one wanting to confuse the subject with everything else. We're talking, in short, about "Man creating life" basically in a test tube. That implies one and only one thing here and that is does it meet certain parameters to qualify as a lifeform. Not whether or not evolution plays a part or anything else. So.. with that, I'm done with the discussion of Belief Versus Fact, because you're obviously not up to the argument at this point. I suggest further studies on your part.

Wrong. It is a theory that is based on the limited number of prehistoric bones and tissues that have been found, and assumptions that have been made based on what we know about bones and other tissues today.

No, I'm RIGHT. It is a KNOWN FACT based on written records of the heights and weights of various peoples, in various times. I'm not going to spend my time researching records to show you that you're wrong, however, I can tell you that you are because I've done such research in the past. If you want to BELIEVE that science is incapable of proving things, so be it, that's your bias and loss. Not mine.

I understand and accept the fact that science has measurements it can perform to prove things, however I also recognize the limits of what those measurements can tell us.

I also recognize the limits of measurements and do understand that mistakes can cause incorrect assumptions -- and your global warming example was perfect to show this, evolution is a whole different story. There is something called the scientific process, in which other factors come into play, that includes but is not limited to experimentation to prove various portions of a theory, one piece at a time, based on experimentation results, review and critique by others in the scientific community whom are familiar with the particular subject in great detail (and do find mistakes and can show reason that such believed facts are untrue). It is through this full process that evolution has come, and it is through this process that many variables have been thrown out and facts have been shown to be correct. It is upon the FACTS that the theory stands now, rather than a baseless storyline. Sorry, that is very much higher up on the scale of "believablity" that a story that has nothing upon which to base the story other than a writers word from more than 2000 years ago.

I don't believe that science is any better than religion, just different.

Nor do I, and like you, I think they are different. Rather like philosophy, wouldn't you say? Basing argument upon logical conclusions and factual information one can see and read for oneself makes an argument more convincing, than say a story told by someone we do not know, can't ask questions of, and must take it on faith alone.

I also consider it intellectual dishonesty to ignore the limits of science in order to assert a religious belief as fact.

By the same token, ignoring religious belief completely and discounting it is just as dishonest. I've done neither (and neither have you... for the most part). My argument is not that either religion or science should or necessarily WILL prevail in that Evolution-Creation debate. I'm not arguing for either side. I'm merely arguing that, as a quasi-scientist myself (I'm technically an "electronics technician" these days, and an electronics engineer - but have a very strong background in physics/astrophysics, and several other sciences) that there are strong reasons for "believing" one theory over another.

I do not take away from religious beliefs AT ALL by leaning toward Evolution... people can, in my opinion believe what they wish to believe (right or wrong). That's what this country is about. It's when one side attempts to force only one thing down the other side's throat that it becomes contentious. This is precisely what the Creationists have done. To me, this is something to be taught in Sunday School. And science should remain in the public and private schools. Period. Give both views, from different perspectives and you will see that two simply do NOT CLASH. (I was taught both in this manner, and I'm fine with both).

However, none of your "facts" are convincing proof that evolutionism is any less of a religion than any other faith-based belief system.

Well, I am not trying to convince you of this, but there is a difference in taking something on faith alone, and 'believing' something because it is taught based on facts. I personally am convinced however, that there are people who RELIGIOUSLY believe untrue things. The anti-Bush, Anti-US, Anti-NWO conspiracy theorists are RELIGIOUS in their incorrect beliefs that 9-11 was a government conspiracy, and Bush/Cheney were at the bottom of it, and that there is a hidden, secret government that is intent on taking their rights and making a one-world government, and there are concentration camps all over the US to hold those of us who do not go along with the NWO, or that there are forces in the Council of Foreign Relations, or some hidden Masonic groups, or the Illuminati who have no good in mind for any of us. Those are misdirected, but organized groups whom are directly responsible for passing and continuing to pass lies and misinformation in an effort to eventually undermine the US Government, Capitalism and the people of this country.

I've spent many, many years arguing similarly with them for different reasons. And your augments are based on similar 'facts', all of which go back to simply a belief system without any foundation other than "faith in a writer". Just as many Conspiracy Theories will fall quickly on their asses when you bring to bear a bit of research against the Conspiracy Theorist who will quote many things, in different locations, and with a wave of his had say simply, "It's all related" without showing the relationships. When you SHOW them their originator of a statement wasn't, and point to a document he read somewhere else, and to which all of them ultimately point to -- but the actual originator has NO BASIC FACTS to back his information up, or you find out it was based on erroneous material (like global warming) you can show malice on the part of the originator, and unfortunately, complicity on the the part of those perpetuating the story.

I conclude then that you have no "facts" that form a basis for evolutionism. I have no "facts" that form a basis for creationism besides the fact that it is told in the Bible. I concede that creation is my belief based on faith in the bible, but concur that evolution is nothing more than the same based on faith that the bible is wrong. I thank you for engaging in a little friendly dialog on this subject. Have a great day.

I conclude that I do have facts that DO form a basis for evolution (I haven't posted many, only a few -- and really, that's not what the original thread was about in the first place) but you simply refuse to ACCEPT something I say because you're biased with a different perspective on the subject.

I also concede that because of your "belief" based solely on your faith in the Bible (and I'm NOT saying that's a BAD thing so do NOT take me wrongly here) that you are biased to the point that you are UNWILLING to accept the scientific evidence so far, because you believe the two to be mutually exclusive. That, right there is the reason that science CAN prove things, and religion can not. Faith alone doesn't feed you, or your family. Science can't either - but, it can certainly genetically change a grain to make it produce more food (as has been done with corn, for instance, since the time of the American Indians. Corn produced LITTLE in the beginning, and over time has been genetically interbred with various other species of corn to produce strong corn stalks, bigger kernals, longer cobbs and so on - and this is an example of evolution, enabled by humans....)

I can't say that you're correct on your last statement... Evolution is not attempting to prove the Bible is wrong. That is a complete fabrication based on what folks want to think. The Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with science proving or disproving something. Science takes that which we can see, here and now, and tries to explain it from the simplest to the more complex, in a manner that takes what we KNOW into account. If I said that an island off the coast of California suddenly formed by MAGIC and wizards lived on that island because I saw nothing but smoke and steam bellowing from it, anyone with half a brain would tell me I was cracked. There's no such thing as "magic" science would say, and religious would say "Well, IF it was magic, it must be evil" - both sides would consider me crazy. Until someone went out there and found dragons and wizards doing battle. In the real world, that won't happen, the island will have been formed by volcanic action, and the only 'dragons' would be the molten lava flows. The wizards would likely have been in my mind.

Humans believe what they wish to believe, for their own, personal reasons. Sometimes for the good, and sometime for the ill. I would never say that for you or anyone else to believe in evolution is a bad thing. By the same token I would ask that those who do believe not try to force me to believe in something I see other evience for, and do not have to take a faith-based approach.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Russ, I don’t NEED to look at the site. I never said I didn’t believe in creationism. I never said I believed in Darwinism either.

I’m sorry, but I’m an amateur astronomer. I’ve gazed at the heavens through telescopes for over forty years. I have no reason NOT to believe in God. /shrug.

I agree with some of Doctor Ross’ ideas, and indeed believe that God created everything around us. I just don’t believe the Bible Authors got the dates right haha

[Rick.Donaldson]

What is BS?? That humans are trying to create life in a test tube? No, that’s not BS.

[Rick.Donaldson]

I still think you’re all missing the most important point, can we EAT it....

[RightWhale]

DNA is not life. They might make a new species of something, that has been going on for decades.

[UCANSEE2]

“Evolution is accepted as not a theory, but as fact. It is taught as such from grammar school through college. Why? Well, gee wiz, there are scientific ‘facts’ to support it.”

Facts which WE figured out through the extensive use of mathematics and scientific testing.

Using..... the brain God gave us.

[Sopater]

"Truth"? What do you mean by "truth"? I had this same damned argument with a Conspiracy theorist, who claimed "My truth is different than your truth"... we're not talking about "Truth" in a religious sense. We're talking about FACTS.

The "Truth" is what actually happened to cause us to be here, regardless of what anyone thinks. My "truth", your "truth", it's all irrelevant to "THE truth".

No, I'm RIGHT. It is a KNOWN FACT based on written records of the heights and weights of various peoples, in various times.

You said "pre-history". I was assuming that you meant before there were such things as "written records". Sorry if I misunderstood your statement.

I can see that you're not really understanding my position, just as I may not be clearly understanding yours. The "facts" that you presented could just as easily be interpreted to support the theory that God created the earth just the way He said He did in Genesis 1. Most scientists don't believe that however because they first presume that the STORY of how we came to be here must be explained by purely naturalistic processes. This presumption is not scientific. Science is observation of the facts, and ancient history cannot be observed, only the remnants of that history can be observed and the STORY that is told to explain them is firmly based faith.

You're correct to point out that we've strayed from the subject of the thread, however your simplification of "life" for the benefit of those who don't like to read sort of got me started. Thanks again for the discussion. Good day.

[RussP]

“I just don’t believe the Bible Authors got the dates right haha”

Which “dates” are you referring to?

[Rick.Donaldson]

DNA is not life. They might make a new species of something, that has been going on for decades.
I don't recall saying that DNA was life. I don't recall ANYONE saying it was. I'm still confused as to what is "BS" in your opinion. Since you're arguing that DNA is "NOT LIFE", which by the way is technically correct, I'm not sure what you're talking about. DNA is REQUIRED, at least on our planet, to be considered life though. In fact, everything considered to be a life form contains DNA. It's actually an instruction set for life, and every cell in your body has it (the same DNA, by the way).

I guess I'm not sure what you're arguing about, since you're right about them trying to create life for decades. I believe I pointed that out myself a bit earlier.