jmog wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote: Hi, my name is opinion. Nice to meet you.

When an opinion goes against all scientific fact, it is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Christianity: where they pick and choose which science to believe and which to ignore.

This should be fun, show me the scientific "fact" that proves this.

But the researchers hope eventually to design bacterial cells that will produce medicines and fuels and even absorb greenhouse gases.

Dr Helen Wallace from Genewatch UK, an organisation that monitors developments in genetic technologies, told BBC News that synthetic bacteria could be dangerous.
"If you release new organisms into the environment, you can do more harm than good," she said.
"By releasing them into areas of pollution, [with the aim of cleaning it up], you're actually releasing a new kind of pollution.
"We don't know how these organisms will behave in the environment."

Mooney44Cards wrote:

Hahahaha. Ummm ya. It's all true. Everything in that book is true and every scientific theory with mountains and mountains of evidence showing that the universe is 14 billion years old and there was life on earth for millions of years before humans is wrong.

At least those who believe in evolution can point to new evidence discovered all the time that supports the theory. As far as I know there is nothing beyond the bible that supports creationism.

So good luck with believing in fairy tales.

I for one like to believe that just because the story of creation isn't true doesn't mean you can't believe in God. But whatever, I guess with some people if you believe in one thing, you have to believe it all.

jmog wrote: After reading deeper, they didn't CREATE life, they transplanted synthetic DNA that they created from multiple existing DNA fragments (they pieced together parts of various DNA fragments they wanted) and then put the new DNA in an already existing bacterium/cell.

In other words it was the first full DNA "transplant", like I said, completely novel and ground breaking, but not exactly as "sensational" as BCS made it in the original post.

I sure wish he would actually read the articles he posts sometimes.

buckeyefalls wrote: "We" have created life? I don't think so. This doesn't prove anything. How did the first "life" get "life" then?

Hmm...

Oh yeah, it was that Big Bang that miraculously just produced life. I get it now.

Whether you believe we came from evolutionary products or from the first "man" you still have to prove where life came from originally.

j_crazy wrote:
fact:

according to the bible, life started roughly 2500 years ago.

j_crazy wrote: fact:

the computer you're at, jmog. is made of plastics. some of which came from oil. it's powered by electricity which is either supplied by burning coal, or burning natural gas (most likely).

fact:

these things (oil, coal, natural gas) are the result of millions of years of burial, pressurization, and heating of carbon atoms from once living creatures.

fact:

according to the bible, life started roughly 2500 years ago.

BCSbunk wrote:
That is creating synthetic life.

The bacterium was dead thus life was created.

I sure wish you would study some biology. You may be a scientist but you are very ingnorant of biology and geology.

That is where your words are misleading. I am a scientist. So what? You are in your field but that does not make you versed in all fields of science and with the nonsense you spout about geology and biology it shows it.

We have created synthetic life. No god needed.

j_crazy wrote: fact:

the computer you're at, jmog. is made of plastics. some of which came from oil. it's powered by electricity which is either supplied by burning coal, or burning natural gas (most likely).

fact:

these things (oil, coal, natural gas) are the result of millions of years of burial, pressurization, and heating of carbon atoms from once living creatures.

fact:

according to the bible, life started roughly 2500 years ago.

BCSbunk wrote:

psst it is 6000 years ago.

Jmog competely ignores all evidence in geology he is completely ignorant of the science in that field whether it is on purpose or not I do not know.

jmog wrote:

j_crazy wrote: fact:

the computer you're at, jmog. is made of plastics. some of which came from oil. it's powered by electricity which is either supplied by burning coal, or burning natural gas (most likely).

fact:

these things (oil, coal, natural gas) are the result of millions of years of burial, pressurization, and heating of carbon atoms from once living creatures.

fact:

according to the bible, life started roughly 2500 years ago.

Your first "fact" is the only one that is fact.

Your 2nd one is not fact, you got the theory of burial, pressurization, and heating part right, but not fact that it takes millions of years.

You also screwed up the Bible's start of life age.

j_crazy wrote: i'm not trying to get in this fight, i was just stating facts.

and you're right i don't know the OT enough to know when it presumes life to have started.

i can tell you that the failure to mention dinosaurs (which IMO would have been a big part of life) lead me to believe that the bible is at the very least set in the last million years or so.

j_crazy wrote:

i guarantee that if you dig up the oldest known grave it's within 2 inches of it's original burial depth.

that's where the years come into play. it takes millions of years to be buried deep enough for the heat and pressure to be right to correctly form hydrocarbons. this (the temp and pressures) was proved when germans started making synthetic fossil fuels during WWII.

jmog wrote: You stated 1 fact, you were 1 for 3.

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible and I have covered this quite a few times.

The word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s, so the English word "dinosaur" does not exist in a book that was translated into English in 1611, common sense tells us this.

However, look up "leviathon" and "bohemoth" in the Bible, and their descriptions, and please tell me that isn't a description of a dinosaur.

jordo212000 wrote:

jmog wrote: You stated 1 fact, you were 1 for 3.

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible and I have covered this quite a few times.

The word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s, so the English word "dinosaur" does not exist in a book that was translated into English in 1611, common sense tells us this.

However, look up "leviathon" and "bohemoth" in the Bible, and their descriptions, and please tell me that isn't a description of a dinosaur.

Exactly what I was going to say. Only I think it is "Behemoth" and "Leviathan"

jmog wrote:

j_crazy wrote:

i guarantee that if you dig up the oldest known grave it's within 2 inches of it's original burial depth.

that's where the years come into play. it takes millions of years to be buried deep enough for the heat and pressure to be right to correctly form hydrocarbons. this (the temp and pressures) was proved when germans started making synthetic fossil fuels during WWII.

The temperatures/pressures things you again, are correct, but the millions of years to "move" isn't necessarily correct. Plus, those types of temperatures and pressures don't only exist "down low" look at volcanoes.

Also, what you are assuming is it takes millions of years for "rock layers" and the like to "push" the dead bodies down.

However, cataclysmic events also form "rock layers" and push things down, like massive volcano eruptions, floods, etc.

j_crazy wrote:




only shales or sandstones are permeable enough to commercially produce oil and gas from and they take millions of years to bury deep enough to achieve the hydrocarbon formation.