[Besoeker]

Did God have something to do with it too? I think God made at least some of His creatures to be easily domesticated by man.

I think man, not god, bred different kinds of animals to have particular charactersitics.
I also grew up on a farm. Scotland in the county of Angus. It's where you get your term "Black Angus". That's where they were bred. By farmers.

[Hindsite]

I think man, not god, bred different kinds of animals to have particular charactersitics.
I also grew up on a farm. Scotland in the county of Angus. It's where you get your term "Black Angus". That's where they were bred. By farmers.

Yes, man did the selective breeding, but it was God that provided the genetic code of variability, so man could select the features he wished to breed into those kinds of animals with the limit of not being able to change cattle into horses or dogs or some other kind of animal.

[Besoeker]

Yes, man did the selective breeding, but it was God that provided the genetic code of variability.

Again, your opinion - but stated as fact by you.

[ingliz]

it was God that provided the genetic code of variability, so man could select the features he wished to breed into those kinds of animals with the limit of not being able to change cattle into horses or dogs or some other kind of animal.

Genetically modified chimeras

"Many ACHM models, such as transgenic rodents each containing one (or a few) human genes, and animals with human tissue grafts, have a long history of research use without major ethical or regulatory difficulties. However, technologies are advancing rapidly; more extensive sections of DNA can be manipulated, and methods using human stem cells to replace parts of tissue, or even whole organs, are becoming increasingly refined. By enabling progressively more extensive, and precise, substitution of human material in animals, these approaches may soon enable us to modify animals to an extent that might challenge social, ethical, or regulatory boundaries. Based on the evidence we received the published literature, our public dialogue, and our own discussions, we identified areas which might merit special consideration, including:

• Extensive modification of the brain of an animal, by implantation of human derived cells, which might result in altered cognitive capacity approaching human ‘consciousness’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘human-like’ behavioural capabilities.

• Situations where functional human gametes (eggs, sperm) might develop from precursor cell-types in an animal; and where fertilisation between either human (or human-derived) gametes and animal gametes might then occur.

• Cellular or genetic modifications which could result in animals with aspects of human-like appearance (skin type, limb or facial structure) or charaacteristics, such as speech..."

Source: Report 'Animals containing human material', The UK Academy of Medical Sciences

[Hindsite]

Genetically modified chimeras

"Many ACHM models, such as transgenic rodents each containing one (or a few) human genes, and animals with human tissue grafts, have a long history of research use without major ethical or regulatory difficulties. However, technologies are advancing rapidly; more extensive sections of DNA can be manipulated, and methods using human stem cells to replace parts of tissue, or even whole organs, are becoming increasingly refined. By enabling progressively more extensive, and precise, substitution of human material in animals, these approaches may soon enable us to modify animals to an extent that might challenge social, ethical, or regulatory boundaries. Based on the evidence we received the published literature, our public dialogue, and our own discussions, we identified areas which might merit special consideration, including:

• Extensive modification of the brain of an animal, by implantation of human derived cells, which might result in altered cognitive capacity approaching human ‘consciousness’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘human-like’ behavioural capabilities.

• Situations where functional human gametes (eggs, sperm) might develop from precursor cell-types in an animal; and where fertilisation between either human (or human-derived) gametes and animal gametes might then occur.

• Cellular or genetic modifications which could result in animals with aspects of human-like appearance (skin type, limb or facial structure) or charaacteristics, such as speech..."

Source: Report 'Animals containing human material', The UK Academy of Medical Sciences

I suppose you think this disproves God made the genetic code. However, it does not because God made the genetic code for both humans and animals. That is both an opinion and a fact.

[Besoeker]

I suppose you think this disproves God made the genetic code. However, it does not because God made the genetic code for both humans and animals. That is both an opinion and a fact.

It can't be both.

[Hindsite]

It can't be both.

Why not?

[Besoeker]

It can't be both.

Why not?

It's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese.

[Hindsite]

It's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese.

Your opinion may not be fact, but your opinion does not prove my opinion is not fact.

[ingliz]

I suppose you think this disproves God made the genetic code.

No, it seems to show that there are no god given limits to man's ability to manipulate DNA, to "change cattle into horses or dogs or some other kind of animal".

[Hindsite]

No, it seems to show that there are no god given limits on a man's ability to manipulate DNA.

I suppose the fallen angels are intelligent enough to manipulate DNA too. Perhaps that is why we have legends of part man and goat and other such mixed man and animal creatures. Perhaps that is why God had to bring a worldwide flood upon the earth to destroy these legendary creatures.

[Godstud]

If God made man in his own image, and that's what the BIble says, then you didn't think God gave man the power/dominion over all the animals(Gen 1:26)? That would include altering and changing them(like God could do, after all we're made in his image, which, if taken literally could mean he made us into sort of demi-gods). Your faith is weak, Hindsite, and your logic, horribly flawed.

[Hindsite]

Your faith is weak, Hindsite, and your logic, horribly flawed.

Please go troll on another topic created by someone else. You don't have anything to say that I am interested in. All you are doing is corrupting my thread with your nonsense.

[Godstud]

I don't care. I am not here for your amusement or approval. Others, I am sure, find my words more than insightful and correct. It's not my fault that you cannot glean any knowledge or insight from my words. Perhaps you are taking them too literally?

[Besoeker]

It's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese.

Your opinion may not be fact, but your opinion does not prove my opinion is not fact.

Nor does your opinion prove that your opinion is fact.
If something is a fact it is a fact regardless of opinion. But you seem to be predisposed to state things as fact when the are, at best, no more than opinion.

[Besoeker]

It's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese.

Your opinion may not be fact, but your opinion does not prove my opinion is not fact.

Nor does your opinion prove that your opinion is fact.
If something is a fact it is a fact regardless of opinion. But you seem to be predisposed to state things as fact when they are, at best, no more than opinion.

[Hindsite]

Stating truth is the same as stating fact.
So when I state a truth I am stating fact.
A fact remains a fact regardless of what you believe about proof.
You simply disagree with what I state is true and have no other argument other than your belief.

[Besoeker]

Stating truth is the same as stating fact.
So when I state a truth I am stating fact.
A fact remains a fact regardless of what you believe about proof.
You simply disagree with what I state is true and have no other argument other than your belief.

I think you miss the point. You make assertions that things are fact (or true if you prefer) with no basis for doing so. I don't mind that you believe what you believe.

[Hindsite]

I think you miss the point. You make assertions that things are fact (or true if you prefer) with no basis for doing so. I don't mind that you believe what you believe.

I suppose you believe in the theory of evolution and that man evolved from some other animal. You don't seem to have any problem with people stating evolution is a fact. Evolution has not been proven as a fact to me either and never will be, in my opinion.

When I state something is true (or a fact) I have sufficent evidence for me as proof. Just because I do not give you sufficent evidence to prove it to you, does not mean I don't have the right to state it as truth or as fact from my own point of view. Your constant nagging about it does not make it any less true to me.

[Godstud]

The Theory of Evolution is THE BEST theory, which is supported by evidence, that man has come up with. THAT IS THE FACT. If you can't believe that, then you are being willfully ignorant, and ignoring facts due to your misguided beliefs. understanding how scientific method works might help you. Do some research on the subject, Hindsite. Even an old dog can learn new tricks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

A truth, as you put it, is a very vague thing, and you can believe something to be true, but that doesn't make it so, unless there is evidence to support it. Evolution has evidence to support it. That evidence is manipulated, perverted and corrupted by some(Creationists), to say what THEY want it to say. You, as a person believing in the Bible, are also being manipulated by these curs, into believing lies "interpreted" from the Bible, by others. Think on THAT!