The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.

Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?

Sure, I believe in DNA - it's the blueprint for life. Question is, without an outside INTERVENTION, as in BLIND CHANCE, can "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?



(hint: at this point, most clueless evolutionists will revert to asking what life is in order to avoid answering the question)

Do you think chemical reactions are random? Or blind chance? Or is chemistry a very precise set of circumstances? Is chemistry repeatable, observable, testable, predictable, and reliable?

Or does chemistry act in all kinds of random ways? Some days sodium reacts with water and somedays it doesn’t?

No argument there. As someone who played with chemicals, I get random reactions IF I don't PROPERLY MIX them in the correct proportions and correct sequence. It takes good knowledge to know the bonds between molecules. But that's not the point.

> without an outside INTERVENTION (knowhow), as in BLIND CHANCE, can a "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?

Now we're not even discussing how RNA's are formed.

So care to answer the Q?

you just said you get random reactions when you mix things in the wrong proportions.

I’m honestly going to give you a second chance to write that again, in a way that makes sense. It’s really important that you can do that for me. It is the point. Putting the right words in the right order is important for people to know what you are trying to say.

ok smarty pants, my point is, knowledge is needed, otherwise, poof!

Blind chance - mixing chems blindly will kill you.

For example, in order to get RNA you will need energy at the right amount and correct time, otherwise, poof! Then you will need proteins and enzymes to form a membrane, then there's also the DNA where information comes from to form the RNA. There's more.

So, can a "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life - by blind chance?

Signing off.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

we know exactly how RNA is formed. We see it in the wild, and we can make them in the lab.

So what? RNA only works as a messenger to relay information. We already know that life here on earth shares common living organisms found in soil, so how does finding RNA in the environment change anything as it pertains to evolution vs creation? It doesn't. Until you can reproduce an entire human from scratch, you have no idea whether we evolved from something else or not.

Only works as a messenger? You should look up RNA until you can come back here and explain what it is.

What do you mean “ life shares common living organisms found in soil”?

That is perplexing. I think the problem is that you have almost 0% understanding of biology. If that is the case, fine, but be honest, how far did you get in biology courses?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.

Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?

Sure, I believe in DNA - it's the blueprint for life. Question is, without an outside INTERVENTION, as in BLIND CHANCE, can "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?



(hint: at this point, most clueless evolutionists will revert to asking what life is in order to avoid answering the question)

Do you think chemical reactions are random? Or blind chance? Or is chemistry a very precise set of circumstances? Is chemistry repeatable, observable, testable, predictable, and reliable?

Or does chemistry act in all kinds of random ways? Some days sodium reacts with water and somedays it doesn’t?

No argument there. As someone who played with chemicals, I get random reactions IF I don't PROPERLY MIX them in the correct proportions and correct sequence. It takes good knowledge to know the bonds between molecules. But that's not the point.

> without an outside INTERVENTION (knowhow), as in BLIND CHANCE, can a "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?

Now we're not even discussing how RNA's are formed.

So care to answer the Q?

you just said you get random reactions when you mix things in the wrong proportions.

I’m honestly going to give you a second chance to write that again, in a way that makes sense. It’s really important that you can do that for me. It is the point. Putting the right words in the right order is important for people to know what you are trying to say.

ok smarty pants, my point is, knowledge is needed, otherwise, poof!

Blind chance - mixing chems blindly will kill you.

For example, in order to get RNA you will need energy at the right amount and correct time, otherwise, poof! Then you will need proteins and enzymes to form a membrane, then there's also the DNA where information comes from to form the RNA. There's more.

So, can a "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life - by blind chance?

Signing off.

I need you to re write what you said earlier so that it makes sense. I’m not going to gloss over any discrepancies you make. We are going to take this point by point.

a reply to: Woodcarver

What do you mean “ life shares common living organisms found in soil”? Mean?

Life as in plants, animals, and humans. We already had this discussion in another thread and at that time you acknowledged this.

Why don't you go back and read that article again that you posted yesterday to refresh your memory on what it takes to create living chemistry and all the different combinations it takes. RNA doesn't produce life on it's own.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Creationists are like horses. You can lead them to water, but they’re not smart enough to understand books. Even if you read it to them.

Ey! Smart One, let's test your scientific knowledge:

Origins+Evolution = non-living to living.

Origins+Creation = Living to Living/Life begets life.

Which one is 100% testable and credible?

Origins of life, as in non living self reproducing molecules like RNA that have been found to form naturally in the environment and have been reproduced in many labs, as well as other amino acid chains that form living self reproducing molecules like DNA.

Do you believe in DNA?

Sure, I believe in DNA - it's the blueprint for life. Question is, without an outside INTERVENTION, as in BLIND CHANCE, can "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?



(hint: at this point, most clueless evolutionists will revert to asking what life is in order to avoid answering the question)

Do you think chemical reactions are random? Or blind chance? Or is chemistry a very precise set of circumstances? Is chemistry repeatable, observable, testable, predictable, and reliable?

Or does chemistry act in all kinds of random ways? Some days sodium reacts with water and somedays it doesn’t?

No argument there. As someone who played with chemicals, I get random reactions IF I don't PROPERLY MIX them in the correct proportions and correct sequence. It takes good knowledge to know the bonds between molecules. But that's not the point.

> without an outside INTERVENTION (knowhow), as in BLIND CHANCE, can a "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life?

Now we're not even discussing how RNA's are formed.

So care to answer the Q?

you just said you get random reactions when you mix things in the wrong proportions.

I’m honestly going to give you a second chance to write that again, in a way that makes sense. It’s really important that you can do that for me. It is the point. Putting the right words in the right order is important for people to know what you are trying to say.

ok smarty pants, my point is, knowledge is needed, otherwise, poof!

Blind chance - mixing chems blindly will kill you.

For example, in order to get RNA you will need energy at the right amount and correct time, otherwise, poof! Then you will need proteins and enzymes to form a membrane, then there's also the DNA where information comes from to form the RNA. There's more.

So, can a "non living self reproducing molecules like RNA" become a form of life - by blind chance?

Signing off.

my point is that when talking about pre-life, you are talking about chemistry. Chemistry is not random. When bonds are made, that is not random, it is inevitable. RNA is not formed by random chance. It is formed by chemical bonds. RNA is amazingly complex. And we know it forms naturally. We should really focus on it until you have an in depth understanding of all of the tasks that RNA can do all by itself.

It makes the idea of DNA forming from the products of RNA less of a stretch. It is really inevitable that RNA becomes DNA

dnaftb.org...

Experiments in the 1960s showed that messenger RNA has the ability to store genetic information, while transfer and ribosomal RNA have the ability to translate genetic information into proteins. Experiments performed two decades later showed that some RNAs can even act as an enzyme to self-edit their own genetic code! These results raised two questions: 1) Why does RNA play so many roles in the flow of genetic information? 2) Why bother storing genetic information in DNA, if RNA alone could do the job?
RNA has great capability as a genetic molecule; it once had to carry on hereditary processes on its own. It now seems certain that RNA was the first molecule of heredity, so it evolved all the essential methods for storing and expressing genetic information before DNA came onto the scene. However, single-stranded RNA is rather unstable and is easily damaged by enzymes. By essentially doubling the existing RNA molecule, and using deoxyribose sugar instead of ribose, DNA evolved as a much more stable form to pass genetic information with accuracy.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

What do you mean “ life shares common living organisms found in soil”? Mean?

Life as in plants, animals, and humans. We already had this discussion in another thread and at that time you acknowledged this.

Why don't you go back and read that article again that you posted yesterday to refresh your memory on what it takes to create living chemistry and all the different combinations it takes. RNA doesn't produce life on it's own.

Yea, i remember that you said the same meaningless statement in another thread. Do you remember what i said when i corrected you? I’ll throw a cookie at you if you can come close.



Like, really, say it again in a way that makes sense. Learning is hard, but i’m here for you.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Let me refresh your memory on what your own link in another thread had to say...

As with most things in biology, the origins of living chemistry are unlikely to be simple. Metabolic processes, RNA generation, and amyloid replication all could have been competing, clashing, and blending to form the first life in a primitive biochemical tango.

"We will never be able to prove which is true – to do so, we would have to turn back the last 4 to 4.5 billion years of evolution," says Riek.

"However, we suspect that it was not one, but multiple molecular processes with various predecessor molecules that were involved in the creation of life."

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

Let me refresh your memory on what your own link in another thread had to say...

As with most things in biology, the origins of living chemistry are unlikely to be simple. Metabolic processes, RNA generation, and amyloid replication all could have been competing, clashing, and blending to form the first life in a primitive biochemical tango.

"We will never be able to prove which is true – to do so, we would have to turn back the last 4 to 4.5 billion years of evolution," says Riek.

"However, we suspect that it was not one, but multiple molecular processes with various predecessor molecules that were involved in the creation of life."

Yep, i agree with all of that. There were almost definitely multiple competing chemical reactions that worked in conjunction and against each other when the first molecules were formed that would fit our definition of life.

a reply to: Woodcarver

LOL! I'm done. You're so confused, you don't even know when you're contradicting yourself.

Besides that, NONE of this still proves evolution over creation. Until you can show us exactly (step-by-step) how all of it interacted and came together and where these materials (organic or otherwise) came from originally, you've still got....NOTHING!

a reply to: Deetermined

Don’t forget to write that statement again.

“You said life shares common living organisms in the soil”

But thats not what is going on.

Write it correctly or everyone is going to laugh at you.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

LOL! I'm done. You're so confused, you don't even know when you're contradicting yourself.

Besides that, NONE of this still proves evolution over creation. Until you can show us exactly (step-by-step) how all of it interacted and came together and where these materials (organic or otherwise) came from originally, you've still got....NOTHING!

Look, i’m trying to explain it, but you have to show me that you understand what i’m saying. You are literally writing gibberish sentences like,

“Life shares common organisms in the soil”

Rewrite it so it makes sense because that is pure gibberish.

You can’t claim i am wrong if you can’t coherently explain what i am saying to you.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I already explained to you what I meant by that, but you lack reading comprehension obviously regarding all matters. Your communication skills are lacking. You should stop while you're behind.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

I already explained to you what I meant by that, but you lack reading comprehension obviously regarding all matters. Your communication skills are lacking. You should stop while you're behind.

No, you didn’t. Just humor me and put in plain words so i can see if you are following.

a reply to: Deetermined

What kind of biology courses have you taken. Serious question. I’m taking an honest interest in showing you what you want to see. But i have to know what your background in biology is, so i know where to start.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Here, I'll help you since you're mentally challenged. Go to the top of the page and count down to the 4th post on the page. Remember when I linked that "Soil Life" table for you? I'm sure you don't, as you're probably suffering from dementia.

Goodnight!

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

Here, I'll help you since you're mentally challenged. Go to the top of the page and count down to the 4th post on the page. Remember when I linked that "Soil Life" table for you? I'm sure you don't, as you're probably suffering from dementia.

Goodnight!

Write it again right here. Your next post. Explain what you meant by

“Life shares organisms in the soil”

I don’t think you can.

Why won’t you answer this? You could easily prove with one post that you understand, but you don't.

I could assume that you are so embarrassed that you need to claim that i am delusional,

But you are the one who doesn’t understand what all life on the planet shares in common.

Did you study biology at all?

Do you have a highschool education?

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

What do you mean “ life shares common living organisms found in soil”? Mean?

Life as in plants, animals, and humans. We already had this discussion in another thread and at that time you acknowledged this.

Why don't you go back and read that article again that you posted yesterday to refresh your memory on what it takes to create living chemistry and all the different combinations it takes. RNA doesn't produce life on it's own.

yea, i’m looking at this post and it doesn’t help explain what the organisms that you think all life shares are?

a reply to: Woodcarver

“Life shares organisms in the soil”

Hey troll, not sure why you can't grasp what I've already told you, plus you couldn't even get the quote right. Go back and do your homework provided your brain is still able to function tonight.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

“Life shares organisms in the soil”

Hey troll, not sure why you can't grasp what I've already told you, plus you couldn't even get the quote right. Go back and do your homework provided your brain is still able to function tonight.

i’m feeling quite well thank you. What is your background in biology? Did you get to biology 101 in college?

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

“Life shares organisms in the soil”

Hey troll, not sure why you can't grasp what I've already told you, plus you couldn't even get the quote right. Go back and do your homework provided your brain is still able to function tonight.

i guarantee that no one can follow what you are saying. It’s obvious you didn’t study biology even in highschool. You don’t know what all life on earth share in common, and you think RNA is just a messenger.