OUG writes: "BUT..you admit..science dont know first life..ETC ETC
this GIVES..THE GODLESS..an easy out..
its a shame you teach kids its a signed sealed surety"

Until the majority of experts adopt the ape/pig hypothesis I will take my lead from the consensus. I have no agendum to scratch around for fringe science to legitimate an hypothesis.

"WHen the science proof..SIMPLY DONT EXIST..[full stop]
you got a theory..i see your theory and name names"

You got it in one! There is no such thing as "scientific proof", only a preponderance of evidence and probability. That is the beauty of the scientific method. Scientific knowledge is subject to improvement, refinement or even subject to rejection for a more probable explanation of the evidence. When the ape/pig hypothesis becomes the better explanation is when I will accord it deserved respectability

"[THE CASE..for believing loki [or god]..dun it
takes as much faith...as the faith IN SCIENCE/in a fraud/theory."

My "faith" in science is an intellectual one based in rationality, logic and adhering strictly to Ockham's Razor. Your faith is an imperative for the obsequious traceable in psychology to the dread of being defenceless in an indifferent Universe. Denial from you is undoubted, but nonetheless the conclusion is inescapably true.

"IF YOU CANT REPLICATE..its not science
cheating kids with fraud/out of god..is fair/till science actual can REPEAT ITS DOING..till you\can prove HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED
SAYING IT WAS One/way..and not the other..isnt science..ITS THEORY/faith."

Bunkum! We can observe a supernova but no lab could cater to replicating one. We experience gravity but no apparatus yet devised can replicate it. Many phenomena in the macro spectrum cannot be replicated yet we understand them very, very well.

"till you\can prove HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED
SAYING IT WAS One/way..and not the other..isnt science..ITS THEORY/faith."

Which tells me that you have no understanding of what is a "scientific theory" as opposed to the commonly accepted meaning of "theory" outside of science.

There's not much value to be gleaned from a battle of wits if one's opponent is unarmed. I'm beginning to lose interest in you old chap.

EXTROPIAn1/quote..<,..We can observe a supernova but no lab could cater to replicating one...>>

SO..you admit the..'science'..is impotent..to replicate/this fist life..as much as a supernova..[they are hardly the same thing]..life according tO YOU..should be easy[once you find a self replicating /molecule]..i put it to you thats an insanity..a cell [micro]-replication..is a complete world away..from 'self replicating molecules[NANO]

WHAT IS CERN SUPPOSED TO BE DOING/JUST SOME 'GOD Particle/higgs boson/dark/anti-matter matterrs....or things related to supgraer NOVA/FUSION ETC

<<.GRAvity/quote seLF DELETED.>>STWe experience gravity but no apparatus yet devised can rep>>

stUFF AND nonsense[you have a centrifuge at home..thats liKe gravity..BY CENTRIFUGAL/FORCE..[INLUE OF MASS/CENTRIFIcal energy[YOU SEEN THEM MOTORCYCLE RIDERS..IN A CAGE/THATS CENTRIFIC GRAVITY..GRAVITY ISNT AS COMPLICATED AS YOU THINK..ITS JUST MASS..DOING WHAT MASS DOES[ACCRETE]

WE EVEN HAVE MACHINES THAT MEASURE GRAVITY
we replicate GRAVITY JUST THROWING A SPEAR..gravity ..is simply mass..[energy]..attracting more mass..[you know of course mass does escape a black hole[RIGHT?]

<<..Many phenomena in the macro spectrum cannot be replicated yet we understand >>..kudos from me for knowing macro/from micrO..BUT FORGET MACRO..IM INTERESTED IN MICRO..[IE THE FIRST LIVING CELL]..NOT MOLECULE..THATS BEYOND MICRO..WELL INTO nano

we need get to where ideas..create theories
accepting any theory gives illusion more weight that the creative/imagining that thunk the theory[WE RESPECT THE INSANE GENIUS/YET RIDICULE NUTTERS]

YOUR THE ONE HANGING UP ON ME..saying things..like..<<..you have no understanding..of what is a "scientific theory" as opposed to the commonly accepted meaning of "theory" outside of science.>>

OH WISE ONE..i recall one clever 'scientist..who was so 'advanced'..no one could grasp him/nor his theory..HE WAS WELL KNOWN..TO GIVE HIS RAMBLING NONSENSE..TO EMPTY JALLS[GOD BLESS TENURE/eh..cause peer review..ensures that the same non thinking rOTE REPEATING ACTIONS..NEVER MAKE NEW DISCOVERY..just.like..religion.

anyhow/NOW I NEED CLEAN UP/EDIT
CLARIFY/SIMPLIFY..but why..if your going anyhow

I HAVE READ..MUCH FROM MANY GREAT-MINDS..Done little..but feel them minds with me even now..ask questions/Put up counter thesis....I WILL INTUIT THEIR INPUTS/

Just get over the fact..the words change FORM/NOT FUNCTION
energy CANT BE CREATED..NOR DESTROYEd..it can change both.

my guides have been indicating to ME..the importance..of chimera..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
IN THE TELLING OF THE STORY..BUt i got too many 'articles'..WHEN I GET INSPIRED TO TRY HARDER/.../its sorry post limits..THEN THE EDITING AND THE WONDERFUL Support..i will let the F1 hybred
chimera pig chimp zygote THEORY..FLOAT OFF INTO DREAMTIME.

THERE WERE A FEW KEY SENTENCES..i planned to edit

* chimera with two sets of DNA.[15]

In biological research, chimeras are artificially produced by selectively transplanting embryonic cells from one organism onto the embryo of another, and allowing the resultant blastocyst to develop.

Chimeras are not hybrids, which form from the fusion of gametes from two species that form a single zygote with a combined genetic makeup, or Hybridomas which, as with hybrids, result from fusion of two species' cells into a single cell and artificial propagation of this cell in the laboratory.

Essentially, in a chimera,..each cell is from either of the parent species,..whereas in a hybrid and hybridoma, each cell is derived from both parent species..."Chimera" is a broad term and is often applied to many different mechanisms...of the mixing of cells from two different species.

As with cloning,..the process of creating and implanting a chimera is imprecise, with the majority of embryos..spontaneously terminating. Successes,..however,..have led to major advancements...in the field of embryology,...as creating chimeras of one species with different physical traits, such as colour,...has allowed researchers to trace the differentiation of embryonic cells through..the formation of organ systems..in the adult individual.

The first known primate chimeras..are the twins Roku and Hex; each having 6 genomes...They were created by mixing cells from toripotent 4 cell blastocysts;..although the cells never fused..they worked together to form organism.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16065&page=0

its so much easier..taking 'it'..on faith
trust ye..in god or science..both...'cant be validated/thus must remain equal/neither..can be treated..as fact..ie we got bias

/stasis..so stop teaching.evolution/theo-ry..as if fact.[ocams razer..the simplest=god/dun it

OUR KIDS WILL SORT FACT FROM FICTION/ONCE WE TELL THEM TRUTHFULLY..WE DONT KNOW[sure we have theories]..but the science cant validate one or the other..the one sure thing is SHHH*IT HAPPENS...that even science cant relicate..THUS WE CAN CONTEMPLATE AS WE CHOSE

OUG writes; "
SO..you admit the..'science'..is impotent..to replicate/this fist life..

Please refrain from reinterpreting what I write. Science is not impotent. Abiogenesis is a very active field of research and science will succeed in unraveling the mystery. And religious faith will have made no contribution. Adding a "god did it" is adding fantasy to pure science, millions of words in concordances and commentaries desperately trying to gain science's attention. Beating your head against a brick wall might aid your juvenile presumption to martyrdom, meanwhile I'll patiently await science's inevitable and inexorable advances. You and your ilk have a petulant impatience with science which seems to be a defining feature of religious faith.

"as much as a supernova..[they are hardly the same thing]..life according tO YOU..should be easy[once you find a self replicating /molecule].."

Once again you reinterpret what I write. I wrote nothing about how easy nor how difficult it would be.

"i put it to you thats an insanity..a cell [micro]-replication..is a complete world away..from 'self replicating molecules[NANO]"

I have already written words to this effect. You are repeating what I have already said and throwing it back as if yours was the original idea. Your credibility is thus reduced.

stUFF AND nonsense[you have a centrifuge at home..thats liKe gravity..
"WE EVEN HAVE MACHINES THAT MEASURE GRAVITY...we replicate GRAVITY JUST THROWING A SPEAR.."

Consult a dictionary for REPLICATE

"<<..Many phenomena in the macro spectrum cannot be replicated yet we understand >>..kudos from me for knowing macro/from micrO..BUT FORGET MACRO..IM INTERESTED IN MICRO..[IE THE FIRST LIVING CELL].."

Is a self-replicating molecule "living"? The natural world is immensely indifferent to your interest. Nature will do what nature does despite your petulant prejudices.

"YOUR THE ONE HANGING UP ON ME..saying things..like..<<..you have no understanding..of what is a "scientific theory" as opposed to the commonly accepted meaning of "theory" outside of science.>>"

And you have demonstrated that you don't understand the difference

"energy CANT BE CREATED..NOR DESTROYEd..it can change both."

Well......DUH!

"its so much easier..taking 'it'..on faith
trust ye..in god or science..both...'cant be validated/thus must remain equal/neither..can be treated..as fact..ie we got bias"

It would be in your best interest if you informed yourself on what is understood as FACT, LAW, HYPOTHESIS and THEORY in the realm of science. You would then understand that much of what you write [as in the above] is drivelous nonsense. I recommend a modest but beautifully written book titled SCIENCE AND CREATIONISM A View from the National Academy of Sciences. It is printed by the National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Ave. NW Washington DC 20418
ISBN 0-309-06406-6 [paperbound]. Therein you will find a wealth of wisdom that will appeal to your intelligence and not challenge your faith.

"/stasis..so stop teaching.evolution/theo-ry..as if fact.[ocams razer..the simplest=god/dun it"

Upon reading this, I came to the realisation that the above appeal is to one of your lesser talents. The Theory of Evolution is one of the most tested and confirmed theories in science. The evidence in support of it is overwhelming. Not one piece of evidence has been discovered that confounds it over more than 150 years of research.

"OUR KIDS WILL SORT FACT FROM FICTION/ONCE WE TELL THEM TRUTHFULLY..WE DONT KNOW[sure we have theories]..but the science cant validate one or the other..the one sure thing is SHHH*IT HAPPENS...that even science cant relicate..THUS WE CAN CONTEMPLATE AS WE CHOSE"

If, as you say, we don't know, why do you insist god dun it? What evidence have you that your faith trumps science? You don't need to attack or belittle science to do this. Just lay down the reasons why a god is necessary and the evidence as to his presence. Just remember, you don't need to attack science to do this. That there are many things science is yet to discover is NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR GOD'S EXISTENCE for the same reason that it is not evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence.

What evidence have you that science will never discover the secrets of LIFE? Do you claim a prescience denied to the rest of humankind?

NUMBER ONE/quote..<<..If,..as you say,...we don't know,..why do you insist god dun it?>>..

DESPITE..150 YEARS..of science 'PROOFING'..SCIENCE
AS/YET cant name names..NOR REPLICATE....IT

ANY WHO CLAIM TO KNOW../IT\..BUT CANT REPLICATE/clearly don't know nuthin..[bUT FAITH..in other KNOWING]..so till we know..for sure..even the best knowing is by faith./EVEnn..ot in what others know*now.,.but what others..*expect to know..somewhere far..into the never never..=INSANITY/NOT SCIENCE.

look extropian..if YOU SAY..YOU GOT SCIENCE PROOF
but you dont got even a single science proof/..you can replicate
THEN MATE..what do you have?..Faith some unknowable day..that some 'other'..will know/THAT'S NOT PROPER SCIENCE

but lets pretend it is..who will maybe somehow sometime..replicate evolution/by what field of science..when you science..do you include all sciences..endless unknowable unknowns..isnt science.

<<..What evidence have you.that your faith trumps science?>>

you throw occams razor.as a proof/i say simplest...oc rule..is to allow that some unknown insane SCIENTIST..did it all..[via some time flux thing..so lets name him...god]..[till he declares his real name/names HIS PURE SCIENCE..[EVOLUTION]..evolution at best..is what sciences..can be..AP-LIED...imp-lied to imply.

<<>>You don't need to attack..or belittle science to do this.>>

if you have THE RIGHT TO RAISE SCIENCE OVER GOD
I HAVE THE Right..to stick god..over your..MIS-conceptions..[of scienceS..OMNIPOTENCE]

<<...Just lay down..the reasons..why a god is necessary..and the evidence..as to his presence.>>

ambiogensus..is refuted..simply BEcause it..hasnt made life..FROM NON LIFE..*

THE LIVING/good..sustains life..[*LIFE ALONE..CAN MAKE LIFE*[..this science fact..iS PROVED EVERYDAY..[THE DEAD..MAKING LIFE..IS NOT A..FALSIFIABLE-FACT..ITS AN OPINION]..[AS YOU have/needed to change EVEN..the definition..OF THE WORD/THEORY..AND..'I am's-BIO-GENUS]

the Signs....of god are light love logic
life/SUSTAINING..life/LIVING..[GRACE MERCY..etc]

<<..>>Just remember,..you don't need to..attack science to do thi

of you claim..by science/THAT\..no god...was NEEDED..FOR FIRST LIFE
ITS NOT..mY job to invalidate..your/LACK..OF PROOF..OF IT/BUT WITHOUT PROOF..ITS JUST..A DECEIT/deception..clearly/simply..

if you dont know..you have..no method OF Discerning..what is true SCIENCE..FROM WHAT..ISNT SCIENCE AT ALL..[FAITH..ISN'T SCIENCE]

<<>.What evidence..have you that science..will never discover..the secrets of LIFE?>>

clearly..if you decided..that 'life'..can only..exclude god
you will never..find the truth..[its like saying..somewhere in all these grains of sand..i will find..sand..thats not sand..[sure you may..but you..wont find..living sand]

think..why you cant..simply..name names
OR EVEN..present...ONE..Scientifically VALIDATED 'EVOLUTION'..Into new genus.,[rest/deleted][word/limits]