07 Mar 12
3 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.
07 Mar 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI saw nothing on your referenced website about Dr. Orgel, but I did see the following:
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.
"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. 😏
07 Mar 12
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?
07 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsof 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.
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'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.
07 Mar 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSorry, I saw nothing but speculation, which I don't call science. If it is not
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.
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.
07 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWe 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.
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.
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.
07 Mar 12
Originally posted by humyhttp://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/self_replication.html
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThe fact that neither you nor the idiots running that site comprehend how Biology works or
http://www.dnarefutesevolution.com/self_replication.html
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.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI did not see anything indicating it was a religious website. But since the DNA
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.
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."
07 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsso 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.
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."
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.
07 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds“...I did not see anything indicating it was a religious website ...”
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."
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHinds"...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...."
I did not see anything indicating it was a religious website.
Then you are blind as well as dumb.
It is a site that peddles creationism which makes it religious by definition.
08 Mar 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt looks to like he is just declaring the truth and he reaches that conclusion
"...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]
based on this truth.