The origins of abiotic species

[6days]

Scientists have just very recently put together, from chemicals off the shelf, a genome that is of the entire DNA of a bacterium, inserted it into a bacterial shell and created a functioning reproducing bacterium that way: http://bigthink.com/think-tank/edward-o-wilson-explores-the-potential-of-ultimate-biology

Not sure what you are thinking..... Are you saying that this experiment of genetic engineering is evidence for our Creator? The team of scientists certainly seem to show that Intelligent design is required.
The experiment and results were quite amazing, but really copied or synthesized a genome based on what God had already created.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Yes, that is very interesting. Thanks. How does this relate to the OP, are you trying to explain where "dirt" came from?

Dirt comes from weathered rock. Rock comes from hardened sediment or cooled magma which comes from the mantle. The mantle was formed from the collisions of several planetoids. The planetoids were formed from the accretion of supernova dust. This dust was created in the depths of massive stars that were second or third generation. The stars were formed from the stuff of the big bang. The big bang came from a singularity. What causes singularities? I don't think we know yet.

 

[TheDuke]

The article describes it with words like 'design...constructing...engineering'.
Seems like they are trying to prove ' intelligent design'.

Seems like your logic isn't any better on other threads.

Cheers!

 

[Stripe]

Seems like your logic isn't any better on other threads.

Asserting logical shortcomings without describing how the person has failed is common among evolutionists.

 

[noguru]

Asserting logical shortcomings without describing how the person has failed is common among evolutionists.

:think:

You are amazingly astute. Your powers of perception are unequaled among YECs.
:rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

See what i mean? :idunno:

 

[noguru]

See what i mean? :idunno:

Yes, its very clear how accurate you are. :rotfl:

 

[6days]

See what i mean? :idunno:

Ha... yup!

 

[Stripe]

As scientists, what we are looking for is good reason that our ideas must be wrong. However, evolutionists cannot even bring themselves to admit that an idea has been presented. They will do anything to avoid engaging with what the opposition has said, preferring straw men, ad hominem, question begging or even the weather; anything but a rational discussion of the ideas.

 

[6days]

As scientists, what we are looking for is good reason that our ideas must be wrong. However, evolutionists cannot even bring themselves to admit that an idea has been presented. They will do anything to avoid engaging with what the opposition has said, preferring straw men, ad hominem, question begging or even the weather; anything but a rational discussion of the ideas.

So true...... Few evolutionists can admit that their 'science' is not true science. Their science is trying to interpret evidence to fit their beliefs about the past.
This quote from a evolutionist is getting a bit tired, but its good because its an admission that evolutionism is religious in nature.
"‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, Geneticist

 

[gcthomas]

So true...... Few evolutionists can admit that their 'science' is not true science. Their science is trying to interpret evidence to fit their beliefs about the past.
This quote from a evolutionist is getting a bit tired, but its good because its an admission that evolutionism is religious in nature.
"‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ... " Richard Lewontin, Geneticist

A great quote, but you left out the final sentence in the paragraph:

"... The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." Richard Lewontin

i wonder why you quote(mined) the entire paragraph, but left out the final sentence that puts the whole in context? Are you YECs allergic to context when quoting?

 

[6days]

i wonder why you quote(mined) the entire paragraph, but left out the final sentence that puts the whole in context? Are you YECs allergic to context when quoting?

Pffffft..... that sentence is more of exactly the same. He is admitting that he can accept absurd reasoning..... anything other than following the evidence that leads to an intelligent Creator.

 

[Stripe]

A great quote, but you left out the final sentence in the paragraph:[box]"... The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." Richard Lewontin[/box]i wonder why you quote(mined) the entire paragraph, but left out the final sentence that puts the whole in context? Are you YECs allergic to context when quoting?

Evolutionists will do anything to avoid the subject, even when they start it.

 

[Jonahdog]

As scientists, what we are looking for is good reason that our ideas must be wrong. However, evolutionists cannot even bring themselves to admit that an idea has been presented. They will do anything to avoid engaging with what the opposition has said, preferring straw men, ad hominem, question begging or even the weather; anything but a rational discussion of the ideas.

"As scientists. what WE are looking for..."

Stripe, who knew you were a scientist. How modest you have been. Please supply your CV so your brilliance can shine out from under that Biblical basket.

 

[Jonahdog]

So true...... Few evolutionists can admit that their 'science' is not true science. Their science is trying to interpret evidence to fit their beliefs about the past.
This quote from a evolutionist is getting a bit tired, but its good because its an admission that evolutionism is religious in nature.
"‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, Geneticist

Are you suggesting Lewontin supports your particular "just-so" Biblical stories as opposed to real science? Just askin'.

Or is this just one of your favorite quote mines?

 

[6days]

Are you suggesting Lewontin supports your particular "just-so" Biblical stories as opposed to real science? Just askin'.

Remeber you were asked to try harder to make logical arguments? You need to keep trying. Like Stripe said evolutionists do anything to avoid the subject.
If you read the quote again, Lewontin is willing to accept absurd logic and 'just so' stories. He admits he is not willing to follow evidence that leads to the Creator.

 

[gcthomas]

He is admitting that he can accept absurd reasoning.....

Didn't you read it? He was saying that he accepted the scientific reasoning even if it led to what looked like absurd conclusions (the 'absurd constructs'). Exactly the opposite of what you claim. As usual.

 

[Base12]

*Bump*

:sheep:

 

[Jonahdog]

Remeber you were asked to try harder to make logical arguments? You need to keep trying. Like Stripe said evolutionists do anything to avoid the subject.
If you read the quote again, Lewontin is willing to accept absurd logic and 'just so' stories. He admits he is not willing to follow evidence that leads to the Creator.

You quote mine a real scientist to lend support to your theological views and I'm accused of being illogical---sweeet!

 

[Stripe]

Meanwhile, the answers to OP go unchallenged.