If;life comes from a re-combination of chemicals why can't they create life from chemicals now?"(A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami)
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/evolution.htm

..life comes from life[our proof is that everything we see is produced by something already living]...

Darwin says evolved gradually[and modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically].

If life originated from chemicals,and if their science is so advanced,then why can't they create life biochemically in their laboratories?

They say that they will create life in the future.What future? When this crucial point is raised,they reply,'in the future'.But if they are so advanced they must demonstrate now.

Scientists are claiming that their science is wonderful, but when a practical example is wanted,they say they will provide in the future. ..

They say that in the ultimate analysis,everything came from matter. Living matter came from nonliving matter.But where is this living matter coming from now?

If they cannot prove that life arises from matter in the present,how do they know life arose this way in the past?There must be proof.We can prove life arises from life.

For example,a father begets life to a child.The father is living,and the child is living.But where is the proof that a father can be a dead stone?

They cannot prove that life comes from DEAD matter.

Living beings move from one form to another form.The forms already exist.[The living'being'simply transfers himself,just as a man transfers himself from one apartment to another.

Real evolution does not mean physical development,but development of consciousness..

Matter is caused by life and matter grows upon life.My body grows upon me,the spirit soul; just like putting on an overcoat..

..there are two types of energy-inferior and superior-they are actually working with these two energies every day.Material energy can never work independently;it must first come in contact with spiritual energy...

..scientists speak of'Nature'...concerning natural products like plants,flowers and minerals,but do not mention God.

We may rightly observe that plants are being produced by'nature',But the next questionis,"Who has produced nature?"Where does'nature'come from?Nature means energy.

[As soon as we speak of energy,we must inquire into the source of that energy..

it important to know the truth?from
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8283&page=0

>>took geneticists more than 270 tries to clone“Dolly”the sheep.But what of the 269 Dollys that didn’t make it?Many were deformed and disfigured,stillborn or unable to mature.

...Tobacco-plants were genetically modified with the intention to increase their natural acid profile.Instead they produced a toxic compound not normally found in tobacco.A genetically modified potato unintentionally increased its starch content some 40 to 200 times.

The biotech industry erroneously believes that their foreign gene will behave exactly as it does in its natural setting.The working assumption is that genes determine characteristics in linear/causal chains:one gene,[they believe]gives one protein,gives one function...

..Our current understanding tells us that genes behave in complex inter-related non-linear networks:causation is multi-dimensional and circular;and genes are subject to environmental feedback regulation.

All these factors are excluded by the central reductionist dogma of the biotech industry,which prefers to adhere to the“one gene,one protein,one function” model of yesteryear.

This narrow reductionist mindset allows GM companies to assert that their foreign gene will only produce the one intended protein and therefore will behave in the precise and controlled way they expect.

That the GM companies assume that their inserted foreign gene will only express the one intended protein...In fact,the number of genes in nature that actually express a single protein can be counted on two hands.Most genes code for many proteins.In fact,the fruit-fly holds ..highest number of proteins expressed by a single gene-38,016!

Disturbingly, the biotech industry and our food regulators do no testing for theses possible outcomes.

But there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that they should...

..Mice fed GM soy had unexplained changes in testicular cells and rats fed GM corn showed significant changes in their blood cells,livers and kidneys.

All these GM products had been tested and approved for human consumption.Could the narrow reductionist lens with which the biotech industry views genetic engineering be resulting in unintended effects ..the biotech industry is using the dim candle of 1960’s genetics to assure us that GM food products in the 21st century are safe.

AND yet you blindly accept their deceptions

OUG...in case you havent noticed :) there is no one here anymore...

I see you posted a link to vedic knowledge on line...I took a look, and laughed, when I read the following:

"If something is beyond one's perception, then one must accept a higher authority and that authority is the Vedas. There is no question of experimenting. It has already been experimented. It has already been settled."

So links like this are your PROOF of ambiogenesis?

All of your other links are creationist sites who, of course, are part of the movement to discredit science.

The TalkOrigins site that you said was inaccessible has moved servers, so if you're interested in finding out more about your own movement, go here...

http://toarchive.org/

We live in a free country, and you're free to believe whatever you want, just as I am. I choose to follow the discoveries made by science as it IS based on evidence...

Nothing you have offered has given me any pause for thought about science.

I would suggest you go to some of the science blogs and post your ranting thoughts upon them and see what sort of responses you get.

Good luck and farewell, I wont be back, too much new science to catch up on.

trickerdee>>All of your other links are creationist sites..to discredit science.>>

most of my posts were science sites[and]a few'creationist'sites,but if you read them they respect'science'[they are testing THE science[fact]that is supposed to underpin the theory of evolution]

at least at'creation'sites they delve into the actual;science[most of the science blogs are opinion/feel-good sites[or mearly glossover the issues]

>>The TalkOrigins site/has moved servers,..We live in a free country,and you're free to believe whatever you want,just as I am....<<

great present it/but do you dare to test it?[actually confirm it's''really evidence'[most of these discoveries are single source,thus many have resorted to fake'proofs',but as you say its our own choice.

>>Nothing you have offered has given me any pause for thought about science.<<

this wasnt posted to change your mind

i asked that the theory reveal its facts
as the previous posts will prove no valid proofs were offered

blind=faith in science is the same as blind-faith in god
man cant live by faith alone[ok YET so many can and do]

>>go to some of the science blogs and post your'ranting;thoughts'upon them and see what sort of responses you geT<<

mate been there/done that[if by chance you make a point it gets deleted]thats why i thought to try it here and the weight of response is the same blind panic you would get crying'fire'in a church

[the believers/faith of science are every bit as hardheaded as diehard religionists dying for their version of faith

they need to believe in something[and pretending'your'clever [because'your' believing because of'science'is enough for them,it allows them to think they are so clever[because]their faulse-god replacements'SEEM'so clever]

but as any honest about the facts will confirm..THE FACTS ARNT ALL IN[and the gaps needing to be filled are huge]

all the best bro[i note this topic has alianated many good[but decieved]people against me[but i knew this before i tried to break the seal]that has made respondants deaf and blinded'faith'in fact

[people think to know;what they think to know as/is the only truth[this allows them to stop thinking]
i had hoped for more thinkers

from
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

>>CLAIM..no transitional's...systematic,gaps/..fossil record.

Response:...direct_lineages are_not required!;<<{LOL}>>they could not be verified even if found.<<[LOL}>>What a transitional[fossil]is[in keeping with what the theory of evolution,predicts;is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism<<lol;this redefition of the question is a evolution constant#

>>.....We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years..we do find several'fine'gradations of fossils between species and genera,<<

YET FAIL TO NAME THEM[no link provided{IE the ONLY proof is within the genus[like wolf/dog][micro-evolution[WITHIN THE SPECIES;[not evolution INTO new genus]

>>..many other sequences between higher taxa..very well filled out<<but again not named[how very'scientific'.

>>the following are fossil transitions between species and genera/:'Human ancestry...many fossils of human,ancestors,'<<

[NONE OF THEM REVEALED[,not even a link]>>'and the differences between species are so gradual..not always clear where to draw the lines between them.'<<{LOL}but note the other[7]'proofs'

>>The horns of titanotheres[progressively larger sizes,from nothing to prominence]<<are babies born with horns?[is THIS'nothing'AMBIOGENESIS?]

>>A gradual transitional-fossil sequence<<[UNAMED}>>..Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species<<[you would think that a word like moerpho-species would ring bells[or at least deserve a link?/to be NAMED?]

>>The fossi..transitions between species of Phacops
..Planktonic forminifera...punctuated gradualism.>>

no kidding fossils preserve delicate plankton but not'delicate'animals[LOL}['punctuated gradulism[=]evolutional LAW?[but the'proof'goes on>>Fossils of[mollusc]species/Cenozoic marine ostracodes/The Eocene primate genus Cantius/callops of the genus Chesapecten[gradual change in one"ear"of their hinge over about 13 million years.The ribs also change/Gryphaea(coiled oysters)become larger and broader but thinner and flatter..<<BUT REMAIN OYSTERS

>>The following are fossil transitionals between families,orders,and classes:3rd link[Transitions between fish and tetrapods]GOES to
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html#

>>ClaimCC212;..no transitional fossils between fish/tetrapods[Response:There are several[?}<<

several?[good transitional fossils]:the rest are bad?[the PROOF?]

>>Most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils..A fossil shows eight bony fingers..offering'evidence'that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods.<<

BUT THEN DISAPPEARED till apes RE-EVOLVED IT?[what they devolved after they'evolved;[onto land?]but back to your'PROOF'

>>A,Devonian/humerus#[JOKE HA-HA?}..could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk/Acanthostega,a Devonian fossil,..a fish./Ichthyostega,..'probably'amphibious.../Tulerpeton,.Its shoulders..>>where is the shoulderblade evolving[NEEDED to bear the weight limbs MUST support?]yet,another'link'
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm
no_proof[on my[10th]link]

[KNOW your lying to your own_kids]

.