1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    06 Mar '12 22:31
    http://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/confessions.html
  2. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    07 Mar '12 01:223 edits
    from the site:

    It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS. (Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, Vol.271, October 1994, p. 78)



    note which parts they stressed. they really should have stressed "at first glance, one might have to conclude..."

    but what does our esteemed orgel go on to say on the topic? we shall not know from this site of creationist frauds. they don't bother to tell us the rest.

    but the rest is available.

    dr. orgel goes on to explain how the process happens.
    http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105b/1425chap10.htm

    you should be a shamed of yourself for posting such fraudulent claims without checking the sources.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    07 Mar '12 04:50
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    from the site:
    [quote]
    It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL ...[text shortened]... ld be a shamed of yourself for posting such fraudulent claims without checking the sources.
    I saw nothing on your referenced website about Dr. Orgel, but I did see the following:

    "This time span was once considered too short for the emergence of something as complex as a living cell. Therefore, a number of people suggested that germs of life may have come to earth from outer space with cometary dust or even via a space probe sent out by some distant civilization. The latter scenario was originally by Francis Crick, one of the scientists that worked out the double-helix structure of DNA, and has more recently been recycled in an episode of Startrek (Star Trek, The Next generation, Season 6, Episode 20). "

    Isn't this science fiction? I have been telling you this all the time. 😏
  4. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    316616
    07 Mar '12 05:09
    X has been mentioned in an episode of Star Trek
    Star Trek is a science fiction program
    Therefore X is science fiction

    That's about as stupid as anything I could have possibly expected any supposed sentient being to come up with. How about this:

    Horses have been mentioned in an episode of Star Trek
    Star Trek is a science fiction program
    Therefore horses are science fiction

    Does having a fundamental religious belief muddle your brains entirely, or didn't you have any to start with?
  5. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    07 Mar '12 05:19
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I saw nothing on your referenced website about Dr. Orgel, but I did see the following:

    "This time span was once considered too short for the emergence of something as complex as a living cell. Therefore, a number of people suggested that germs of life may have come to earth from outer space with cometary dust or even via a space probe sent out by some dis ...[text shortened]... Episode 20). "

    Isn't this science fiction? I have been telling you this all the time. 🙄
    of course you didn't see any reference to orgel on that page. you don't have competence for doing research. that page is an excerpt from one of his research papers, the one concerning the quote-mined reference.

    of course, you're avoiding the issue that you posted a site that has fraudulently misquoted this nationally acclaimed biologist. he is no longer around to defend himself, but his work speaks for himself.

    you should apologize for your deception, even though you were unwitting in the transference of it. being witless is no excuse, especially since this is not your first offense.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    07 Mar '12 05:44
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    of course you didn't see any reference to orgel on that page. you don't have competence for doing research. that page is an excerpt from one of his research papers, the one concerning the quote-mined reference.

    of course, you're avoiding the issue that you posted a site that has fraudulently misquoted this nationally acclaimed biologist. he is no lo ...[text shortened]... sference of it. being witless is no excuse, especially since this is not your first offense.
    Sorry, I saw nothing but speculation, which I don't call science. If it is not
    science fiction, it comes awfully close. I still think the link I posted is the
    truth about DNA and RNA refuting evolution. But I understand why you hang
    on to your delusions.
  7. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Mar '12 12:21
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Sorry, I saw nothing but speculation, which I don't call science. If it is not
    science fiction, it comes awfully close. I still think the link I posted is the
    truth about DNA and RNA refuting evolution. But I understand why you hang
    on to your delusions.
    We know that conductions in the early Earth (just before most of the hydrogen in the early atmosphere was lost but just after the oceans formed) that RNA would have spontaneously formed and also microspheres would have spontaneously formed and enclosed the RNA. RNA alone without proteins etc can give a protocell a 'survival' advantage by, for example, giving the outer membrane greater stability thus kick-start evolution.

    So solid strong science tells us that protocells would have inevitably formed. This is not “speculation” as you suggest but science. No DNA nor proteins nor amino acids nor any other complex molecules would have been essential for the formation of these protocells nor would they have been essential for the immediate subsequent evolution after their formation although, no doubt, at some point, the RNA must have started encoding proteins from the amino acids that we know from experiments these amino acids would have inevitably spontaneously formed in the early oceans.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    07 Mar '12 14:19
    Originally posted by humy
    We know that conductions in the early Earth (just before most of the hydrogen in the early atmosphere was lost but just after the oceans formed) that RNA would have spontaneously formed and also microspheres would have spontaneously formed and enclosed the RNA. RNA alone without proteins etc can give a protocell a 'survival' advantage by, for example, giving th ...[text shortened]... experiments these amino acids would have inevitably spontaneously formed in the early oceans.
    http://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/self_replication.html
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    07 Mar '12 14:331 edit
    If you can't understand by reading then hear why DNA refutes evolution.

    YouTube
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 Mar '12 14:39
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/self_replication.html
    The fact that neither you nor the idiots running that site comprehend how Biology works or
    that it is a blind process run simply by the laws of physics and not by any intelligence does
    not mean that science is wrong just that you don't understand it.

    The whole site is (where not lying outright) a big argument from ignorance and incredulity.
    The entire thing is just one big logical fallacy.

    And again.

    THIS IS NOT SCIENCE IT IS YOUR RELIGIOUS DRIVEL.

    Take it to spirituality and get out of science.

    You have no clue what you are talking about and no desire or ability to engage in reasoned
    debate or discussion you simply want to preach your incoherent nonsense.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    07 Mar '12 15:371 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    The fact that neither you nor the idiots running that site comprehend how Biology works or
    that it is a blind process run simply by the laws of physics and not by any intelligence does
    not mean that science is wrong just that you don't understand it.

    The whole site is (where not lying outright) a big argument from ignorance and incredulity.
    The e ...[text shortened]... o engage in reasoned
    debate or discussion you simply want to preach your incoherent nonsense.
    I did not see anything indicating it was a religious website. But since the DNA
    evidence has come out there have been atheist scientists who have much more
    doubt in their previous beliefs now.

    P.S. I believe the guy in the video is describing you when he says, "You
    are not thinking, if you believe this happens by accident."
  12. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    07 Mar '12 19:02
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I did not see anything indicating it was a religious website. But since the DNA
    evidence has come out there have been atheist scientists who have much more
    doubt in their previous beliefs now.

    P.S. I believe the guy in the video is describing you when he says, "You
    are not thinking, if you believe this happens by accident."
    so despite being shown evidence that the site you are posting is fraudulently misquoting known biochemists, which reflects on your own dishonesty, you insist on continuing with your ignorant drivel.

    you don't have the mental capacity to distinguish between science and science fiction nor to distinguish the difference between spirituality and superstition. for that reason, your universe view is composed of fiction and superstition.
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Mar '12 19:282 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I did not see anything indicating it was a religious website. But since the DNA
    evidence has come out there have been atheist scientists who have much more
    doubt in their previous beliefs now.

    P.S. I believe the guy in the video is describing you when he says, "You
    are not thinking, if you believe this happens by accident."
    “...I did not see anything indicating it was a religious website ...”

    Are you stupid? the video clearly is a religious propaganda video.

    “... "You
    are not thinking, if you believe this happens by accident." ...”

    Nobody who understands evolution believes it “happens by accident.". It is you who are not thinking.

    In the video, he first making a big thing of DNA storing information in “three dimensions” -what the hell is the relevance of whether it is stored in one or two or three dimensions?

    He then says:

    “...this is how DNA stores information in three dimensions with overlapping and admitted sequences. ...”

    so what? Lets see: he then says:

    “...Mutations cannot create such a thing, ...”

    What a stupid man. OF COURSE mutations can create such a thing!!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

    He obviously knows nothing about science let alone mutations. The stupid man clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.
    He then says:

    “...it cannot create information”

    But the DNA code IS information!

    He also basically uses the usual totally stupid strawman argument used by so many creationists by making out that evolution is totally “random” thus ignoring the degree of predictability of natural selection.

    The man is CLEARLY totally STUPID and is talking nothing but total CRAP throughout that video.
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 Mar '12 19:32
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I did not see anything indicating it was a religious website.
    "...Indeed, Darwinism is nothing but a totally unreasonable, superstitious belief. Anyone with any reason would see the evidence for that great fact by looking at DNA, or any other part of the universe. Human beings and all living things are created by God, the Almighty, who is the Lord of all the worlds...."

    Then you are blind as well as dumb.


    It is a site that peddles creationism which makes it religious by definition.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12724
    08 Mar '12 01:50
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    "...Indeed, Darwinism is nothing but a totally unreasonable, superstitious belief. Anyone with any reason would see the evidence for that great fact by looking at DNA, or any other part of the universe. Human beings and all living things are created by [b]God, the Almighty, who is the Lord of all the worlds...."

    Then you are blind as well as dumb.


    It is a site that peddles creationism which makes it religious by definition.[/b]
    It looks to like he is just declaring the truth and he reaches that conclusion
    based on this truth.
Back to Top