Genetically modified lab-chickens resemble dinosaurs

a reply to: yuppa

The point is that if the physical laws were slightly different, then the universe would look and behave completely differently. It doesn't mean that the universe wouldn't exist though.

It is not surprising that main opponents to research are people who don't know basics of science and scientific research, as barcs has noticed in his previous post.

Please stay on topic, here is interesting picture....

originally posted by: yuppa
DID I SAY HE BELIEVED IN A PERSONAL GOD? No i DID NOT. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Please calm down. I don't care that you didn't say it, I didn't say you did. I SAID IT because you claimed he was religious, so I wanted to clarify that. He was not religious aside from his upbringing and didn't adhere to any specific religion later in life, so calling him religious is a bit deceptive, sorry.

As for your second point.Where DID I state it was a fact? I am Sooooooooo sorry that i Should had said SCIENTIST instead of just using SCIENCE btw.

You said "Its mighty big coincidence how life started according to science. "

You are wrong because that is NOT according to science. Science requires factual repeatable testing to confirm things. Abiogenesis is not confirmed, so you are attributing something to the scientific view that isn't actually a standpoint of science. It is a possibility, based on some evidence, but not enough to confirm it.

The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.

So what? The universe is huge. Even if the chance of that happening is one in a one billion, it's still inevitable because there are hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy alone. Its faulty logic to make assumptions about the probability of life emerging when we have only seen it on earth so far. It could be all over the universe, or it could be very rare. We simply don't know that yet, so assumptions are pointless.

You seem to be singling me out So Im going to ignore your replies from now on.

I'm not singling you out, I would have said the same thing to anybody who made those claims, and I have actually made those same exact points to plenty of others that say things like "life is a fluke", something we can't possibly know without more information. You can believe whatever you'd like, just please try to avoid characterizing science as a conscious entity or attributing "beliefs" to science that aren't actually scientific positions. Wasn't trying to be mean or anything, I apologize if it sounded that way.

a reply to: SuperFrog

What are potential consequences? Jurassic Park movie?

Chickens that eat their way out of you after you've eaten them.

I was going to post the chest-burster sequence from Alien, but then I thought I wouldn't.

Birds came from dino's, kinda generally excepted fact.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: SuperFrog

They say they are not hatching the eggs. Maybe I am a horrible person, but damn it I want to see a dino chicken.

They say....

Also, this would seem to answer the age old question of 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'. The egg obviously, as it's simply a mutated dinosaur. .