Demonstration of how RNA-like molecules spontaneously form

Originally posted by KellyJay
Who am I to debate flawless logic.
Kelly

Do you?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Ah yes, a banana. The atheist's worst nightmare. Or was it peanut butter?

No, it concerned reason and logic related to information technology, computer science, and DNA. All the Evilutionists and atheists could do is cry religious foul and ask that it be banned from the Science Forum.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've no bias against real science! I believe it is the best way to look at the
the natural world. Where I draw the line is when people make claims that
they believe are true so that everyone else who sees or hears about these
are left with choices, they accept or reject. Those are claims that have to
accepted on faith, did you do all you needed to do to ...[text shortened]... ng it in something, be it some
else' logic or someone else' argument/theory or whatever.
Kelly

Are you just being obtuse or are you genuinely afraid you may be somehow contaminated by science if you watch the 2 video's I presented?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you just being obtuse or are you genuinely afraid you may be somehow contaminated by science if you watch the 2 video's I presented?

You putting your faith if psychology and luck now?

Originally posted by humy

"moral values" who talked about moral anything?

You said:

“..it does you no good to get your math correct if all the VALUES you are using do not fit reality like you believe them to be ...” (my emphasis)

if you were not talking about moral values in the above, then exactly what kind of “values” were you talking about? -give ANY SPE ...[text shortened]... mple and explain how I go from that 'value' to a specific conclusion about physical reality.....

Think of it instead of values insert variables.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Think of it instead of values insert variables.
Kelly

So you mean "variable" from the word "value"? Wow, you seem to really love encrypting your posts so that we cannot possibly make any sense of them. Why is that? Are you afraid that if we could clearly understand what you were saying, we would both see and then say why it is clearly quite wrong?

OK then, what KIND of "variable" then? Just give me just ONE SPECIFIC example of just ONE, ANY ONE, of these "variables" (whatever you mean by that in this context -I have no idea what ) that you claim I assume/have (which? ) that leads me to a false conclusion about physical reality and tell me a specific example of HOW it leads me to a SPECIFIC conclusion about physical reality that you would say must be false (such as it being just a matter of logic that science will eventually make life from none life because it would be just a matter of degree of technological advance just as I explained in a previous post but you then said was false because I have the wrong "values", whatever that means ) ....

Originally posted by humy
So you mean "variable" from the word "value"? Wow, you seem to really love encrypting your posts so that we cannot possibly make any sense of them. Why is that? Are you afraid that if we could clearly understand what you were saying, we would both see and then say why it is clearly quite wrong?

OK then, what KIND of "variable" then? Just give me just ONE SPE ...[text shortened]... s post but you then said was false because I have the wrong "values", whatever that means ) ....

Take a breath.

Originally posted by humy

If evolution is true the evidence will point in that direction. If evolution isn't true the evidence will point in some other direction. How difficult is it to start with the evidence and let that determine whether evolution is true or not?

That IS starting with the evidence. “start with the evidence and let that determine whether evoluti ...[text shortened]...

You don't appear to understand how both even vary basic rational thinking and science works.

No, evolution started with a hypothesis, and scientists who like what the hypothesis implied came to the conclusion it must be true long before most of the evidence was in or became available.

Darwin looking at a cell under a low power microscope would be like you seeing the outline of a automobile for the first time, but unable to see or understand the intricate mechanism inside. And then years later, after learning the how the complex internal mechanism works, you continue to insist the automobile was able to self assemble. This is what has happened with evolution. It started as a desirable alternative to the creation story, but without enough information to be confirmed or invalidated. In spite of this it became an established theory that many of you call a "fact", and today it enjoys a privileged status as it's own branch of science regardless of the evidence.

You've been conned into believing something you already want to believe, and in spite of evidence to the contrary you will continue to believe it. The stakes are too high for you to not believe it, because for you it means the difference between what you believe or don't believe about the possible existence of God.

Originally posted by humy
So you mean "variable" from the word "value"? Wow, you seem to really love encrypting your posts so that we cannot possibly make any sense of them. Why is that? Are you afraid that if we could clearly understand what you were saying, we would both see and then say why it is clearly quite wrong?

OK then, what KIND of "variable" then? Just give me just ONE SPE ...[text shortened]... s post but you then said was false because I have the wrong "values", whatever that means ) ....

Get used to it, not everyone runs in the same circles you do always using
terms the same way you do.
Kelly

Originally posted by humy
So you mean "variable" from the word "value"? Wow, you seem to really love encrypting your posts so that we cannot possibly make any sense of them. Why is that? Are you afraid that if we could clearly understand what you were saying, we would both see and then say why it is clearly quite wrong?

OK then, what KIND of "variable" then? Just give me just ONE SPE ...[text shortened]... s post but you then said was false because I have the wrong "values", whatever that means ) ....

I meant value as I wrote it, you assumed I was speaking about morals
which in context I don't see how or why you'd think that. It is clear you
believe your way of thinking is flawless, the way you view all things in
life are flawless, it is useless to talk to you. You view how you look at things
as beyond reproach, as well as how you string them all together. Your very
high view of yourself is mind blowing.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you just being obtuse or are you genuinely afraid you may be somehow contaminated by science if you watch the 2 video's I presented?

Nope

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, evolution started with a hypothesis, and scientists who like what the hypothesis implied came to the conclusion it must be true long before most of the evidence was in or became available.

Darwin looking at a cell under a low power microscope would be like you seeing the outline of a automobile for the first time, but unable to see or understand th ...[text shortened]... ns the difference between what you believe or don't believe about the possible existence of God.

You don't know what you're talking about, clearly.

Evolution "started" with painstaking data collecting, thousands of pages of field notes and empirical observations, and then gradually (in the face of much skepticism among scientists at the time) a hypothesis coalesced that seemed to fit all the facts at hand. The idea is quite simple: species change over time. To suppose species don't ever change would be the real tall order, because there is no such thing as perfect data transmission. When enough changes accumulate over time, speciation occurs. It's a natural process, and while the particulars of evolutionary mechanisms are still being studied to this day, there is no room any longer to doubt the existence of those mechanisms.

Only the ignorant doubt evolution, generally speaking. You will not find a single evolutionist who proposes that a modern-day eukaryotic cell just "assembled itself." I remember being told again and again that that is what evolutionists believe, back when I was forced to attend Sunday school. Fortunately that didn't stop me from reading basic biology books in the library. Saved my soul, those books did.

Originally posted by Soothfast
You don't know what you're talking about, clearly.

Evolution "started" with painstaking data collecting, thousands of pages of field notes and empirical observations, and then gradually (in the face of much skepticism among scientists at the time) a hypothesis coalesced that seemed to fit all the facts at hand. The idea is quite simple: species change ...[text shortened]... didn't stop me from reading basic biology books in the library. Saved my soul, those books did.

Only the ignorant doubt evolution

That's all you needed to say, because it's the only real argument you have.

I've studied evolution and it's history, and have seen how the accumulation of evidence over the past 50 years has been clearly pointing away from validation of this theory. But if it makes you feel better to call someone ignorant (without knowing if they are or not) then by all means, please continue to soothe yourself with this and other similar personal sentiments.

Originally posted by Soothfast
You don't know what you're talking about, clearly.

Evolution "started" with painstaking data collecting, thousands of pages of field notes and empirical observations, and then gradually (in the face of much skepticism among scientists at the time) a hypothesis coalesced that seemed to fit all the facts at hand. The idea is quite simple: species change ...[text shortened]... didn't stop me from reading basic biology books in the library. Saved my soul, those books did.

So let me get this straight, people who agree with you are logical and reasonable. And intelligent. And people who disagree with you are ignorant and dumb. Has it occurred to you that you are ignorant of what I know or don't know about evolution? What kind of bizarre logic allows anyone to call someone ignorant when they don't actually know if they are or not?

Originally posted by lemon lime
So let me get this straight, people who agree with you are logical and reasonable. And intelligent. And people who disagree with you are ignorant and dumb. Has it occurred to you that you are ignorant of what I know or don't know about evolution? What kind of bizarre logic allows anyone to call someone ignorant when they don't actually know if they are or not?

Gee, I don't know, it seems to me that it's rather more bizarre to claim that tens of thousands of evolutionary scientists, molecular biologists, geneticists, embryologists, paleontologists, and other advanced specialists, are either all a bunch of blooming idiots who have been "duped" by a lie, or have all been conspiring for generations to propagate a lie.

I know where I'm putting my money. My money is on you being the dupe, because this isn't about you versus me. It's about you versus the world scientific consensus. You have your work cut out for you.