(February 16, 2016 at 1:19 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:  And abiogenesis has been replicated in the lab, so that argument from ignorance is quickly getting the flashlight shined into its corners.  I don't anticipate you'll be able to use it for much longer.

Life has been replicated in a lab? where?

(February 16, 2016 at 1:35 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yup, Huggy wins the Nobel Prize in biology. I mean, you have won that, right? Overturning evolution would be a monumental achievement.

Lol, he can't even get the Templeton Prize for Jebus sake!

(February 16, 2016 at 1:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:19 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:  And abiogenesis has been replicated in the lab, so that argument from ignorance is quickly getting the flashlight shined into its corners.  I don't anticipate you'll be able to use it for much longer.

Life has been replicated in a lab? where?

You have access to the Internet, Huggy. I suggest you try doing some independent research like the rest of us do. Like...Google "abiogenesis in the lab." You might actually learn something for once.

(February 16, 2016 at 1:38 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 1:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Life has been replicated in a lab? where?

You have access to the Internet, Huggy.  I suggest you try doing some independent research like the rest of us do.  Like...Google "abiogenesis in the lab."  You might actually learn something for once.  

That's not how providing evidence works. If you want to claim life has been produce in a lab, provide the evidence.

I already know it doesn't exist.

Huggy talking about the burden of proof is pretty rich.

(February 16, 2016 at 1:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 12:54 pm)SofaKingHigh Wrote: Oh, I've seen that before.

But the comparison with breeding bully's....I nearly passed a stone.

Brilliant.

Thanks Hugmeister, made my day. 

Did my explanation go over your head?

When science want to perform experiments, they often use animals, because how the experiment affects the animals can be used to determine how it will affect humans.

Yet somehow you find my example of dog breeding hilarious.

You stated that "the most basic understanding of genetics leads even a layman like me to suggest that thinking the entire human race came from 2 people to be a special kind of stupid."

My example of dog breeding proves that false.

Animal research cannot be generalized to humans. That's not to say the research can't produce valuable information, but it's simply not enough. Randomized, double-blind clinical trials using humans are the gold standard for scientific research.

You don't deserve this, but here:

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2...out-cells/

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-early-earth...d-rna.html

And please, by no means consider this an acceptance of the burden of proof for anything. I am providing you with links to scientific research that exists (that you could have EASILY found on your own). You make a god-claim, the burden of proof is yours. End of story.

You've got to include an actual physical lab, with scientific evidence taking place in real time, inside a forum post.

Or else evolution is false, apparently.

OK so... you guys have 1 hour to post God, or he doesn't exist. Tick tock...

(February 16, 2016 at 1:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You don't deserve this, but here:

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2...out-cells/

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-early-earth...d-rna.html

And please, by no means consider this an acceptance of the burden of proof for anything.  I am providing you with links to scientific research that exists (that you could have EASILY found on your own).

None of those articles claim that LIFE has been successfully replicated in a lab.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Quote:Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.
“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.
RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components.

an RNA molecule does not = life.

(February 16, 2016 at 1:49 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:  You make a god-claim, the burden of proof is yours.  End of story.

We're not talking about God, were talking about Life being created in a lab (your claim), to which you have yet to provide evidence for.

(February 16, 2016 at 8:23 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 8:20 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote: But you do believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans to walk the Earth?

Yes.