qanaA...quote<<Pigs are already lining up on the tarmac :)

Here's one reason that's going to set the pigs flying:>>

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719

bbc reported last night,..the first modification of dna/removed from a cell..was done 50 years ago...[so pigs have been having wings/spin for many years..

BUT lets egsamine your pig

say you have a computer/running on windows...all the link did was remove the software/ie the dna/program...and insert their own dna/program..then calling the faults/error..mess-ages...mutations

<<Here's another cat..for the pidgeons ...>>>not sure if yopur dislectic..so will not reply to this inversion

<<or,..a question for OLO's..irreducible complex entity:..What if your/'Designer'..designed evolution?>>>as said many times previously...he did

further..please note evolution..WITHIN ITS SPECIES/micro-evolution..is a faulsifyable[verifiable]..FACT

BUT..evolution of a new genus..is impossable...
evolution out of genus...as in EVOLUTION..[as per the tree of life]..HAS NOT EVER BEEN RECORDED...not one single evolution OUT OF ITS GENUS...ever...read darwin..he talks of evolution OF SPECIES...

pigions breed pigions/..dogs breed dogs...goats breed gopats...sheep/sheep..fruit-flies breed fruit-flies...humans breed hunmans..apes breed apes..and bacteria bred bacteria...

LIFE BREEDS LIFE...[or as the bible says..like breeds like]
...GET IT?

as the koran says ..first make just one like it...and science hasnt..

putting a new program...INTO A WORKING computer...
..isnt making a new computer...get it?

Dear Davidf,

Thank you for the further explanation and meeting link. I think we are at crossing purposes. I am happy to acknowledge there are several classification schemes, each with its on merits. I was primarily interested in the trunk and roots of the tree. before divergence to consider primitive replicators.

I'm not a Queenslander and have a few seminars on my own to deliver - Not on biology :).

Dan,

Like you, I know heaps of Christians I would assume do not believe the Bible literally. On the other hand, several times, I have read comments from OLO posters, who are not so open. If I had more time, I would have searched the archive for "Genesis" and "Noah", to illustrate.

I even knew (lost contact) and ex-minister you became an athiest when he studied comparative religions for his Masters and assessed Christianity in context with the thousands of others. Some folk do response to evidence. Obviously, others will take a smaller step and say stories are allegories.

Yes, people will change their views. Even faithful Christians will recognise the age of the earth and know that OT and NT were written by several authors detatched from alleged events by generations or even centuries. On the other hand, few neo-Christians would recognize how Paul and Constantine morphed Christianity from vartious Jesus missions.

There are Christians, who have not adopted scientific explanations. In the US, I understand, one group even has a Theme Park.

Lets try again:

runner and OUG,

Is the Earth over 65 million years old? Just a quick, focused reply, will do. Thanks

Just for fun, I thought I might play devil's advocate and weigh in on the ID side (although not ID as strictly defined, or quoted by CJ).
Simply because my interest in religion is, Why?
It was suggested very early on in this discussion that perhaps the putative Creator deliberately designed us (or Life) to be imperfect. This actually makes sense to me.
The Mandlebrot set (and other fractal constructions) is based on a (relatively) simple formula which inevitably builds -through sheer volume and complexity- results almost impossible to fully predict. In the same manner, an intelligent creator may have started with a similar, very simple formula: “Go Forth and Multiply” -and let the cards fall as they will.
This seems a far more intelligent thing to do, in that, what would be the point in creating a perfect experiment, with a perfect assurance of a perfectly predictable result?
In other words, the important question is if there is a Creator, why did It bother? If the outcome was assured and predictable, what would be the point?
I would suggest that such a Creator does not appear to understand the value of morality, judging by our living world; which is typically amoral.
We see instances where competition is supremely important to 'success', but also instances where cooperation is equally vital.
Which is more important, or more 'moral', or offers a greater guarantee of
success?
And how would we (or God) define success?
This appears to me to be the vital question facing us today (and everyday).
Do nice guys inevitably finish last, is competition more important than cooperation, and is “the fish that JW rejects” a deeply profound question, if they number more than 42?
Perhaps we were created to answer these questions for a deeply perplexed God.

Trav,

"This isn't an 'a priori assumption' it is simply creating a discussion from the perspective I come from."

I would have thought that the above plenty much represents a definition of an a priori assumption. You assume Christian theological perspectives before making a case. The fact you might know plenty about Moses and Jesus, but little about Apollo or Zeus, is irrelevant.

Had you said, "according to a Christian perspective", there would have been less overarching and presumption.

Our friend "Sells" also enters into discussions with the Christian ducks lined-up and super glued to the wall. The constant becomes, "the measure of all things". Both of you don't see the forrest for the "tree," singular. It had to view a panarama with one's noise pressing bark.

Vanna,

The elements in the human body question? (See link several posts back and requests for a reply.) Also, how old are the atoms in your body? Would it be wrong to say all the atoms in your body were once part of inorganic entities on Earth and before that a star?

Dear Vanna,
I'm not sure what complete functionality means. An organism completely adapted to its environment generally cannot survive if the environment changes. A parasite completely adapted to live off a particular species will become extinct if the host species does.

You brought up an interesting idea. You wrote it would be rather selfish to keep life on our planet if there is the possibility to spread life elsewhere. I neither agree nor disagree with you as I have never considered whether it is ethical or unethical to spread life. I may agree with you, but I am not sure. It is hard to be objective since we are examples of life on this planet, and we might want to spread ourselves. That tendency seems to be built into life. A philosopher said it is good to die young. Another said it is better not to be born at all, but not everyone is that lucky.

Dear Pelican,
I also would like reason to prevail. I am an atheist who is fascinated by religion, its history, its origins, its functions and its psychology. However, I believe with David Hume that reason is the slave of the passions.

Dear Dan,
I repeat. There's no reason to take the Bible as more authoritative than the Tripitaka, Book of Mormon, the Koran or any other scripture.

Have you investigated the truth claims of other religions? Christianity centres around the belief in a humanoid god figure born of a virgin who was capable of miracles and came back from the dead. Belief in the foregoing is superstition.

Some Christians such as Bishop Spong do not accept the superstitions but emphasise the ethical teachings of Jesus. Those are not too different from the ethics found in the Jewish religion which Jesus was trained in and never left or the ethics of many other religions. "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is from Leviticus. The archaeological evidence concerns the Jewish Bible which Christians have adopted. However, the miracles and other Christian superstitions remain mumbojumbo. Christianity is basically Judaism plus superstition added to the superstition already in Judaism.

Oliver,
Atoms are matter, and of course matter and energy are interchangeable (E=MC^2)

However, for a chemical bond to form, there has to be suitable conditions, suitable activation energy, and suitable catalysts should they be required. Just having the right atoms in an enclosed space doesn’t automatically create a chemical compound.

David f,
I think the theory of evolution does not take into account the metabolic reactions required for an organism to function. While there can be genetic variations of DNA formed by crossing over etc, DNA itself cannot function without specific enzymes (EG highly specific enzymes are required during both transcription and translation).

For a cell to reproduce, there are probably a myriad of enzymes involved (not all discovered as yet), and most of these enzymes are actually manufactured by the cell. It becomes incomprehensible that these enzymes are developed by genetic mutation.

What are your thoughts regards the new synthetic bacteria.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18942-immaculate-creation-birth-of-the-first-synthetic-cell.html

Do you think it should be released into the environment on Earth, or perhaps released somewhere else if suitably modified (& would that be ID)