Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Autumnlicious]

You didn’t know what I meant by “message sender”, yes bacteria “move” information around but this does not make them “message senders”, just like a post man is not the creator of the information he moves from point A to point B. Furthermore, the bacteria only “move” this information around because their DNA tells them too. So the information created by a message sender tells them to move their own information around.

Citation needed on supposition of information needs to be "created" and that DNA is created by a message sender.

Actually the possibility of RNA sequences in early Earth’s history is not real, and in fact it is a statistical impossibility. RNA is even more instable than DNA and both would break down immediately if Oxygen were present. The only problem is, there would need to be oxygen (in the form of water and/or ozone) present in order for anything to be sequenced.

RNA is stabilized by boron. There was a lot of dissolved boron in early Earth's oceans. But you would've known that had you bothered to read up on the RNA world hypothesis.

There is also the huge problem of homochirality of biochemicals, which is something that has never been duplicated in the lab. The first cell would also have had to have been self-replicating from the get-go, which is something we humans cannot even build (no self-replicating machine has ever been built). Abiogenists is unobservable and un-testable under even the most controlled circumstances so therefore it is un-scientific. It is just a blind-faith system, why would I want your faith when I already have my own?

Because no self replicating machine has been built, it is impossible? And your argument again from ignorance does little to support your blind faith.

Abiogenesis is unobservable because we don't know the full parameters of testing it - we're learning more of why and how things fit together, but to test it fully requires more research. Abiogenesis is more defensible, as the Miller-Urey experiment has far more evidence (look! it formed twenty two amino acids!) than your goat fucker book of prayers (has it formed anything in a lab?). Oh wait - I see your modus operandi!

On one hand, we have a mystery about life, with numerous experiments yielding nuggets of information in a vast field of the yet-to-be-discovered. On the other, we have a book that simply says "I created life, the universe and everything".

As to your “Big Bang” point, now you are the one arguing from ignorance. The reason we don’t know for sure if the big bang is the beginning is because the big bang never actually happened.

Riiiiigght

It is an un-scientific (not observable or repeatable) theory that violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. So to say it happened by naturalistic means is just a matter of blind-faith, why would I need your faith when I already have my own?

You don't understand anything about thermodynamics and the big bang, do you?

Arguing the same I see.

Furthermore, every time I provide evidence against Naturalistic Evolution, I am providing evidence for supernatural creation.

And yet all your "evidence" against evolution seems to be based on misrepresentations, misinterpretations and questionable research.