LEST WE FORGET the burdon science is placing on our mutation rate ; see how GMO is affecting the mutation rate at a debait right here at olo

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8283&page=0

where we have an agro-o-mist defending his right to put his acclaimed mutagin into our foods via gmo being put INTO the food chain

DONT think science dont have its own FAULSE gods]

just because the white coat looks clean dont mean science is good[god]

beware of scientists claiming they KNOW it all [they dont]
they just tricked you into thinking its proven WHEN IT AINT

logic matters[my logoic dont trust science
nor religion

i just put my faith in god[who if he dont egsist would yet turn out to be that FIRST life thar 'evolved' from the oooze[emerged FROM the waters]

that light[life] that preceeded 'let there be light'

now we have these faulse saviours scamming us from god;[that let there be science as a god ;moment [movement?]

if you got science PROOF present it HERE?NOW
as it hasnt been presented it there for dont egsist

[so reveal your proof[not your re-proof]
that aint proof
its opinion NOT SCIENCE fact

if you going to take the high ground at least reveal the 'firm ground' FACTS
[complete and full FACTS your standing on aint a sinking ship

google up 'AIDS from monkey serum'

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=aids+from+monkeys+serum&btnG=Search&meta=

or'frauds in science' 771,000 for science fraud.

sScientific fraud and the power structure of science,by Brian MartinScientific fraud and the power structure of science, an article by Brian Martin published in Prometheus,1992.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

Global Trend:More Science, More Fraud - New York Times20 Dec 2005 ... A global explosion in research is outstripping the mechanisms meant to guard against error and fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html

More science fraudMore science fraud. By Jonathan M. Gitlin | Published: January 19, 2006 - 01: 10PM CT. Scientific fraud is a topic that no-one in the profession likes to ...
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/1/19/2578

Amazon.com: Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud ...Amazon.com: Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud: Robert L. Park: Books.
http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195147103

Fraud in Science(Aaron Swartz: The Weblog)14 Mar 2005 ... That’s what most scientists will tell you about fraud in science. Science is magically self-correcting, fraudsters are isolated incidents, ...
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001616

Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of TorontoIn 1981 I began Ph.D. research at the University of Toronto. I walked into a trap: after five years, I was removed from the laboratory and the credit for my ...
http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/ruthless.htm

SCIENCE FRAUD;NPRA leading scientific journal is taking an unusual step today -- it is retracting three papers it published in recent years. Science magazine is taking the ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1050374

Chowk: Science: Fraud and Forgery in ScienceFraud and forgery is rare in the science world but it’s there.
www.chowk.com/articles/9466 - 30k

Science Fraud Shakes Stem Cell Field,LiveScience24 Dec 2005... Scientists fretted Friday that a spectacular cloning fraud that hid in plain sight has set back legitimate stem cell work around the world.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051224_stem_cells.html

the nobel?prize is perfect in being'sciences'highest? honour?
a bunch of fraudster's and shamers that cant even faulsify blatent lies.

[my link;READ IT/rebut IT]
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm

>>Having presented the evidence ...it is'reasonable'to predict the finding of evidence for a'natural origin of life'.Such an origin would be consistent on the basis that the material makeup of life was of supernatural origin.

The evidence of the supernatural origin of life can be classified into three categories:1)law of science,2)law of probabilities,and 3]experimental observation.

The law of science that has stood the test of time being verified thousands of times[without exception since Louis Pasteur's swan neck flask experiment is the Law of Biogenesis

[This law states that,"Where a cell exists,there must have been a preexisting cell,just as the animal arises only from an animal and the plant only from a plant"(Biology,Helena Curtis,second edition,Worth, p.90).

The erroneous notion of life arising from non-living material is recorded as early as Aristotle's time[4BC.]Recipes exist for the fantastic,natural,spontaneous generation of mice from moldy grain,worms and beetles from dust,frogs from mud,and flies from rotting meat...

Surprisingly,in contradiction to the established law of biogenesis,spontaneous generation is still considered to be a valid tenet of current evolution theory.

It is commonly known as abiogenesis(life origin without pre-existing life),which is a field of research in evolutionary biology.The recipes are much more sophisticated,but the results are the same: nothing.

This is to say that in spite of millions of dollars,high tech equipment,carefully controlled research,and thousands of man hours spent on experiments to determine how life could arise naturally from non-living materials,not a single life form has been created.

To encourage competition and more intense effort into creating life in the laboratory,The Origin-of-Life Foundation,Inc.is offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate that life could indeed evolve spontaneously.

Amazingly,this demonstration only has to be presented in theory not experimentally.Following are excerpts from their web site at http://www.us.net/life/

"The Origin-of-Life Prize"(hereafter called'the Prize')will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life.To win,the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical,kinetic,and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein,

and be published in a well-respected,peer-reviewed science journal(s)."

Thread 1[ Mutations]
-Starting point: OUG contends that mutations are ‘rare’ or innocuous:
“one in two hundred cell-divisions has a malfunction[but this is no great big problem cause we got two chromosonal-strands[one from each paRENTAL]so phenotypical expression of the mutation isnt apparent”

-Horus charges OUG has misrepresented the level of genetic defects.

-OUG responds with a variety of -yes but- apparently, it’s true that there are more defects than he first implied -but- it’s all the fault of scientists who are deceiving us, and poisoning us…
“LEST WE FORGET the burdon science is placing on our mutation rate” etc etc

[Note in a few short paragraphs OUG has moved from mutations don’t matter, to mutations are a major blight and -his favourite theme - it’s all the fault of scientists]

Crux: mutations have been with us since day-one; the mere existence on mutations casts doubt on -intelligent design-and tips the scales in favour of evolution.

Thread 2 [ Science is the domain of charlatans]
There is no doubt some scientists who are fraudsters. The core issue however
is not the character of individual scientists but the scientific method.
And the scientific method trumps divine revelation every time!

PS: Love the way you quote scientific authority when its has something to say which supports you crusade but reject it when it finds against you –I think we call that cherry picking!

Thread 3 [ Life]
“Where a cell exists there must have been a pre-exist cell…”

It’s funny OUG that you allow for something to per-exist ( and give it all sorts of wonderful attributes) if its called -god- but don’t extend that privilege to anything else!

OUG tell me, what are the -qualities -something must have to be classified as living

reply-point one[from]
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html

>>..'mutation rates...Bacteria,Archae,and Eukaryotic microbes produce about one mutation per 300 chromosome replications'..<<

[thus MUTATION CANNOT BE RARE]as your body has trillions of cells[YOU alone have millionsof mutations in'you'][because of the corrective mechanism of having chromosonal-PAIRS,and that post'mutation/evolution'YOU are still the same genus]

>>Thread2?..Science is the domain of charlatans]There is no doubt some scientists../..fraudsters>>I AGREE<<And the scientific method trumps divine revelation every time!<<again i agree.

[YOU claim we evolved]it is up to YOU to prove[or disprove it]reveal YOUR own testing[i did enough to verify'evolution'is FULL OF HOLES[gaps]

what researches[breeding tests]have you done to verify the theory to be fact or lie?]none whatsoever?[you sir are an armchair theorist[do your own research]

YOU>>PS:..reject it when it finds against you..we>>[you]<<call that cherry picking!<<

the links you lot post are CHILD LINKS,generalities[give YOUR SPECIFIC'science'PROOFS,]if they egsist[they dont]i point out where in the link[you theorists say read the whole-link[and im the one picking cherries?[lol]

>>Thread3[Life]..you allow for something to per-exist...don’t extend that privilege to anything else!<<[PRE-egsist?]

your the one supporting a'first evolution'from the PRE-slime[from non-life]
dont missreprresent me[i love creation ONLY because god created it]personally life is cccrap[but i chose that by things like posting this topic to explain to those fooled by'educators']

im saying life from life[is what the-facts reveal]its up to you to prove your theory[dead makin life][lol]

>>..what are the-qualities-something must have to be classified as living<<

dear grasshopper;[life,is able to interact with things to ensure its own survival,able to pro-create,has preferances,likes,dislikes,is able to recognise its,self-type[sameness of its type]as well as different[think of my earlier description of the aemeba]it eats,it lives,it breeds,it dies

[then its spirit evolves into its next spiritual evolution[till finally it emerges as a tag named'horus'
[near the heights of incarnate self realisation]and[in time]accends into gods infinite heavens as a realised'sun'of god[to begin his own'let there be light'SUN/solar system]

see your'human'incarnation is near your final'evolution'[but you[must]confirm things for yourself[there is one god alone who knows it all]the rest of creation[ALL OF US]only have right[or wrong beliefs]and theories and adgendas]

BUT YOU CLAIM SCIENCE
[prove it]

FROM
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/life.htm

QUOTE>>Evolutionists have proposed seven steps for the natural,chance,spontaneous generation[of life from non-living material..1.formation of monomers[2.formation/polymers[3.development of a meaningful code[4.Transcription of the code molecule[5.Translation of the code molecule[6.The appearance of the proto-cell[7.The appearance of the[FIRST]EVOLVED cell

Without exception,experiments[at eachof these steps have_failed..to demonstrate that such accomplishments can occur[by'chance'events''caused''by the'natural-properties'of molecules.

Contrary to the claims and expectations of evolutionists,origin of life experiments have[only]demonstrated:[1]the law of biogenesis is,credible(2)the probability of'abiogenesis'exceeds numerical possibility,(3)experiments have failed to produce products in natural simulation settings at all seven stages proposed for the alleged abiogenesis,and[4)evolution of life resulting from the natural properties of molecules[that;YET}cannot be generated even in intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions.

The current...('evolution'as origin of life]...scenarios are untenable and the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to flagellate these conclusions” H.Yockey;Information theory and molecular biology.1992...

..Nancy Touchette;“So far,none of the current theories have been substantiated or proven by experiment,and no consensus exists about which,if any,of these theories is correct.Solving the mystery may indeed take longer than the origin of life itself”(1993.Evolution: Origin of Life...

The'most'credible explanation for the origin of life is the creation model of intelligent,supernatural design.[It is consistent with the supernatural origin of the universe],confirmed by the law of biogenesis and the law of probabilities,[its predictions are demonstrated by thousands of daily experiments in the laboratory.

Insistence of a'natural'origin model in spite of the natural properties of molecules,their impossible chance of occurring,failed attempts to produce life in sophisticated and intelligently designed experiments,and in contradiction to the law of biogenesis is clearly irrational and unscientific.....Following is a summary of the Law of Biogenesis argument for the supernatural origin of life.

1.Law of Biogenesis:"Living cells come from pre-existing living cells."2.Living cells have never been observed to come from lifeless molecules.3.All attempts to create life in the laboratory have failed.4.Therefore,initial living cells must have originated supernaturally.5.The creation model conforms to the data.


[IF}Evolution proposes that life originated by means of the natural properties of molecules.[PROOVE IT]

evolutionary abiogenesis contradictsBASE}scientific law.[Models that contradict scientific laws are unscientific.Therefore, evolutionary abiogenesis as a model of origins is unscientific