Fundies Will Be Shitting Bricks

[LastPoet]

If we presented 99% of evidence, Creationists claim where is the last 1%, If we presented 99,9% of evidence, Creationists claim where is the last 0.1%, If we presented 99,99% of evidence, Creationists claim where is the last 0,01%, If we presented 99,999% of evidence, Creationists claim where is the last 0,001% and so on.... And this kinda reminds me of math

[Minimalist]

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Uhh you are right, it is not proof that it can happen naturally. We can synthesis lots of things in the lab that could never happen naturally, this is one of those things.

We can also synthesize thousands of things that DO occur naturally. Enzymes, for instance. RNA, for instance. R18, for instance.

---

RNA and R18 have never been observed to synthesize naturally. I am sorry.

---

Looking forward the the final theory on just 'How life began' on this rock.

Aww, waiting for the train that will never come.

---

Who made an argument for design?

VS.

Uhh you are right, it is not proof that it can happen naturally.

No, this is proof that Waldorf will blatantly LIE

Not lying at all. My point was that just because men can synthesize something in the lab by no means it can happen naturally. To think otherwise is absurd.

---

---

[hide]

over this one!

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...ecule.html

Meanwhile, back on Earth at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, have created synthetic molecules that copy genetic material. The enzyme, tC19Z, that has been synthesised could be an artificial version of one of the first enzymes that ever existed on our planet three billion years ago -- and a clue to how life itself got started. Their goal is to create fully self-replicating RNA molecules in the lab.

---

Huh? Why would this bother creationists in the slightest? Just because you can synthesis something like this using dozens of carefully controlled factors and intelligently guided forces in no way means it could have ever happened naturally. Sorry to rain on your parade.
But how could us humans with out limited minds who can't even comprehend how god truly works be able to create something that took an all powerful and all knowing mind to create originally? [/hide]

Maybe you need to re-read the article. The researchers did not create life.

---

...even if we demonstrate to them via direct observation of how life can arise from inorganic matter through natural processes...

Then you'd be doing magic, even a huge number of secular scientists today realize that abiogensis is nothing more than a fairy tale.

---

---

If we presented 99% of evidence, Creationists claim where is the last 1%, If we presented 99,9% of evidence, Creationists claim where is the last 0.1%, If we presented 99,99% of evidence, Creationists claim where is the last 0,01%, If we presented 99,999% of evidence, Creationists claim where is the last 0,001% and so on.... And this kinda reminds me of math

---

The problem is not that this is not enough evidence for abiogenesis, the problem is that this is not evidence at all for abiogenesis.

---

---

---

So let's get this straight, you post an article, and then completely ignore the objections to the material in the article but then say that it is Creationists with their fingers in their ears? Classic you.

[orogenicman]

RNA and R18 have never been observed to synthesize naturally. I am sorry

You should be very sorry, because both are naturally occurring organic molecules.

[KichigaiNeko]

It's mk orogenicman Waldorf Salad is well known for his lack of scientific understanding and qualifications...

[Statler Waldorf]

RNA and R18 have never been observed to synthesize naturally. I am sorry

You should be very sorry, because both are naturally occurring organic molecules.

Naturally occurring is not the same as naturally synthesizing. RNA cannot synthesize outside of the cell because cytosine is far too unstable and reactive to ever be synthesized in today's environment and much less in an "early earth" environment. Also keep in mind that the RNA used in these experiments was both purified and activated, something that would never happen in nature. Also, the Miller-Urey experiments did not produce any of the necessary building blocks of RNA so maybe you should stick to geology.

---

It's mk orogenicman Waldorf Salad is well known for his lack of scientific understanding and qualifications...

If you are ill-informed enough to believe that RNA is synthesized outside of the cell naturally then it is definitely you who needs to brush up on your science.

[FoeHammer]

over this one!

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...ecule.html

Meanwhile, back on Earth at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK, have created synthetic molecules that copy genetic material. The enzyme, tC19Z, that has been synthesised could be an artificial version of one of the first enzymes that ever existed on our planet three billion years ago -- and a clue to how life itself got started. Their goal is to create fully self-replicating RNA molecules in the lab.

Atheistic evolutionary fundies? Into ID? Whatever next?

LOL... With regards to "how life itself got started" and "three billion years".....
The scientific method has four "steps" - Observe, hypothesise, test and demonstrate - and since there was no-one there to comply with the first "step". It's all just GUESSING... or should that be wishful thinking... or, perhaps, Pi**ING IN THE WIND.

The latter definitely.
You people will believe any old bollox.


Oh, by the way........ Hi All

FH

[Zen Badger]

You people will believe any old bollox.

Like the bible?

There goes another irony meter. dammit......

[Jax]

Atheistic evolutionary fundies? Into ID? Whatever next?

LOL... With regards to "how life itself got started" and "three billion years".....
The scientific method has four "steps" - Observe, hypothesise, test and demonstrate .

More than four steps, mister.

It's all just GUESSING... or should that be wishful thinking... or, perhaps, Pi**ING IN THE WIND.

The latter definitely.
You people will believe any old bollox.

But you believe in an invisible sky daddy who is supposed to watch over people, mister.

[orogenicman]

RNA and R18 have never been observed to synthesize naturally. I am sorry

You should be very sorry, because both are naturally occurring organic molecules.

Naturally occurring is not the same as naturally synthesizing. RNA cannot synthesize outside of the cell because cytosine is far too unstable and reactive to ever be synthesized in today's environment and much less in an "early earth" environment. Also keep in mind that the RNA used in these experiments was both purified and activated, something that would never happen in nature. Also, the Miller-Urey experiments did not produce any of the necessary building blocks of RNA so maybe you should stick to geology.

---

It's mk orogenicman Waldorf Salad is well known for his lack of scientific understanding and qualifications...

If you are ill-informed enough to believe that RNA is synthesized outside of the cell naturally then it is definitely you who needs to brush up on your science.

I rather enjoy your strawman arguments, Statler. No one suggested that RNA could be synthesized naturally outside a cell membrane. Your argument was that RNA has not been observed to synthesize naturally. Here, let me refresh your memory:

RNA and R18 have never been observed to synthesize naturally. I am sorry.

The fact that they are both naturally occurring molceules makes it impossible for you to claim that they are not synthesized naturally. Whether or not they can be derived naturally outside of the cell is neither here nor there.