1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    15 Mar '15 13:24
    Our Created Solar System

    YouTube
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    15 Mar '15 14:04
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Our Created Solar System

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI
    are they not Evilutionists?
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Mar '15 15:23
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Our Created Solar System

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI
    still no
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    15 Mar '15 17:15
    Proteins can act as catalysts for chemical reactions but cannot replicate without DNA. However, a slightly simpler molecule, RNA can replicate itself and sometimes can also act as a catalyst. The RNA molecule may be simpler than DNA, but it is still complex and involves a chemical structure that does not form spontaneously. The first “ribo-organism” would need all the cell’s metabolic functions in order to survive and there is not evidence that such a range of functions is possible for RNA.

    Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.


    http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/51-the-miller-urey-experiment.html
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    15 Mar '15 17:46
    A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible

    by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

    http://www.icr.org/article/3140

    Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

    http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

    Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

    If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.

    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
  6. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78560
    15 Mar '15 18:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [quote]Proteins can act as catalysts for chemical reactions but cannot replicate without DNA. However, a slightly simpler molecule, RNA can replicate itself and sometimes can also act as a catalyst. The RNA molecule may be simpler than DNA, but it is still complex and involves a chemical structure that does not form spontaneously. The first “ribo-organism” w ...[text shortened]... ence.org.uk/tis2/index.php/evidence-for-evolution-mainmenu-65/51-the-miller-urey-experiment.html
    There's a basic mistake at the end of the second paragraph in your quoted text. It says: "However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.". On it's own this is fine, but it is not a basic chemical law that ribosomes can form spontaneously. So they're equivocating.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    15 Mar '15 20:40
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    There's a basic mistake at the end of the second paragraph in your quoted text. It says: "However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.". On it's own this is fine, but it is not a basic chemical law that ribosomes can form spontaneously. So they're equivocating.
    Hence another notch against evolution. 😏
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    15 Mar '15 21:45
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible

    by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

    http://www.icr.org/article/3140

    Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

    http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

    Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

    If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are require ...[text shortened]... known natural means.

    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
    irreducibly complex, I agree!
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    16 Mar '15 12:161 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible

    by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

    http://www.icr.org/article/3140

    Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

    http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

    Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

    If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are require ...[text shortened]... known natural means.

    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
    There is no such discipline as 'evolutionary origin of life'.

    Evolution NEVER speaks to the origin of life.

    ONLY about what happens to life after it got here, however that may have come about. But you knew that before you posted this crap.

    We can't bust your balls about life origins YET. When they fully figure it out, and I have no doubt they will, THEN we can bust your balls about life origins.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    16 Mar '15 13:46
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    There is no such discipline as 'evolutionary origin of life'.

    Evolution NEVER speaks to the origin of life.

    ONLY about what happens to life after it got here, however that may have come about. But you knew that before you posted this crap.

    We can't bust your balls about life origins YET. When they fully figure it out, and I have no doubt they will, THEN we can bust your balls about life origins.
    yeah you and your pre biotic soup!
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    16 Mar '15 13:48
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    yeah you and your pre biotic soup!
    So you insist on linking evolution with life origin studies?
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    16 Mar '15 15:44
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    There is no such discipline as 'evolutionary origin of life'.

    Evolution NEVER speaks to the origin of life.

    ONLY about what happens to life after it got here, however that may have come about. But you knew that before you posted this crap.

    We can't bust your balls about life origins YET. When they fully figure it out, and I have no doubt they will, THEN we can bust your balls about life origins.
    The evolutionists attempt to speak to all science. Evolutionists attempt to explain the origin of the entire universe, including matter, light, plus the origin of life and species of life. So it is just ignorance on your part to claim evolutionists do not speak to the origin of life. 😏
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    16 Mar '15 16:263 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The evolutionists attempt to speak to all science. Evolutionists attempt to explain the origin of the entire universe, including matter, light, plus the origin of life and species of life. So it is just ignorance on your part to claim evolutionists do not speak to the origin of life. 😏
    Show me the paper or papers where 'evolutionists' try to explain the origin of the universe or anything else beside what happens to life forms after they are made, created, developed by whatever happened. BTW, I know full well you use the term "Evolutionist' as a pejorative. If you don't know what that means, google it.

    "Evolutionist" is a creationist construct, people in REAL science like biology don't use that term.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evolutionist
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    16 Mar '15 16:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Show me the paper or papers where 'evolutionists' try to explain the origin of the universe or anything else beside what happens to life forms after they are made, created, developed by whatever happened. BTW, I know full well you use the term "Evolutionist' as a pejorative. If you don't know what that means, google it.

    "Evolutionist" is a creationist c ...[text shortened]... like biology don't use that term.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evolutionist
    Perhaps people in REAL science don't use "Evolutionists" because the theory of evolution is not REAL science. 😏
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    16 Mar '15 16:531 edit
    Evolutionists claim four evolutions in science. They are astronomical evolution, geological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Each of these are not complete unless they begin from the start. So the theory of biological evolution naturally must begin with the origin of life which according to evolutionists is explained by their theory of abiogenesis.
Back to Top