Creationists

[newpolitics]

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

Nice dodge. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica,...

Does this not bode well for you?

Denial is unhealthy.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is absolutely true. You have no more evidence for your god than the Greek's did for theirs, Muslims for theirs, Hindu's for theirs, etc...

Lie. I have digital code in DNA which was written billions of years ago and is very recent discovery. It irrefutably points to an Intelligent Designer. I also have the Big Bang, which supports the Bible and the fact the universe and time had a beginning. The Greeks didn't have this and it just so happens the Big Bang lines up perfectly with Christian Theology.

I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.

No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.

From your favorite "reliable" source:

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

 

[newpolitics]

The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.

Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.

Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.

NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.

It is tiring to constantly have your ass handed to you, so i can truly empathize! Your position is indefensible, and that is the problem. You rely on pure speculation about probabilities, which you can't actually establish, because we no other instances of abiogenesis to look at. To say there is no possibility that they "floated" together is simply ignorance, hence, part of the basis for your argument from ignorance. You do not know this at all, and have no empirical or logical basis from which to make such a claim.

 

[UltimateReality]

Nice dodge. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica,...

Does this not bode well for you?

Denial is unhealthy.

No, it doesn't. I have PERSONALLY seen the data manipulated on Wiki as fast as the changes were made. Editable bytes will NEVER be as reliable as printed works. Sorry.

 

[UltimateReality]

Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.

Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.

NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.

It is tiring to constantly have your ass handed to you, so i can truly empathize! Your position is indefensible, and that is the problem. You rely on pure speculation about probabilities, which you can't actually establish, because we no other instances of abiogenesis to look at. To say there is no possibility that they "floated" together is simply ignorance, hence, part of the basis for your argument from ignorance. You do not know this at all, and have no empirical or logical basis from which to make such a claim.

You mean like how I just owned you on the QUATERNARY code post??? You are so naive. I'm done arguing with you. You have no basis for your rebuttals. Class Dismissed!!

 

[newpolitics]

Lie. I have digital code in DNA which was written billions of years ago and is very recent discovery. It irrefutably points to an Intelligent Designer. I also have the Big Bang, which supports the Bible and the fact the universe and time had a beginning. The Greeks didn't have this and it just so happens the Big Bang lines up perfectly with Christian Theology.

I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.

No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.

From your favorite "reliable" source:

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?

All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.

 

[newpolitics]

NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.

It is tiring to constantly have your ass handed to you, so i can truly empathize! Your position is indefensible, and that is the problem. You rely on pure speculation about probabilities, which you can't actually establish, because we no other instances of abiogenesis to look at. To say there is no possibility that they "floated" together is simply ignorance, hence, part of the basis for your argument from ignorance. You do not know this at all, and have no empirical or logical basis from which to make such a claim.

You mean like how I just owned you on the QUATERNARY code post??? You are so naive. I'm done arguing with you. You have no basis for your rebuttals. Class Dismissed!!

Did you just say you "owned" me? Are we teenagers in a gaming forum? Holy cow.

Excuse me, but have you not been stating all along that DNA is digital????

Digital code is binary. You know that right? It's not quaternary. So, how are you equating a binary code and quaternary code and saying they are the same?

I think you just got kicked out of the class you were teaching.

 

[newpolitics]

Does this not bode well for you?

Denial is unhealthy.

No, it doesn't. I have PERSONALLY seen the data manipulated on Wiki as fast as the changes were made. Editable bytes will NEVER be as reliable as printed works. Sorry.

Had you stuck around for twenty minutes, you would have found that any edits to a wiki entry will be corrected, because they are highly monitored, especially by the authors. There is a reputation system for the authors in order to develop incentives for good authorship. Any edits to a post will be rejected if they are not factually correct and within a short amount of time.

 

[Hollie]

You lack credibility due to your continued proven lies. Why do you continue to waste your time posting here?

That itself would be a lie. Link us to a proven lie, you creepy stalker.

Here we go...

Well, you do lack education. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you are actually screaming out that lack education.

Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.

Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, LIAR.

If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.

Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html

You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.

 

[UltimateReality]

I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.

No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.

From your favorite "reliable" source:

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?

All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.

You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...

 

[UltimateReality]

That itself would be a lie. Link us to a proven lie, you creepy stalker.

Here we go...

Well, you do lack education. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you are actually screaming out that lack education.

Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.

Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, LIAR.

If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.

Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html

You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.

I am talking about ME!! I have never cut and pasted from Haran Yahya! Why do you keep trying to camoflauge your lie about me? Just admit it. You have no proof that I have cut and pasted from Harun Yahya or have ever quoted him.

Why can't you just admit you lied about ME?

 

[newpolitics]

That itself would be a lie. Link us to a proven lie, you creepy stalker.

Here we go...

Well, you do lack education. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you are actually screaming out that lack education.

Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.

Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, LIAR.

If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.

Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html

You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.

Oops...

 

[UltimateReality]

Does this not bode well for you?

Denial is unhealthy.

No, it doesn't. I have PERSONALLY seen the data manipulated on Wiki as fast as the changes were made. Editable bytes will NEVER be as reliable as printed works. Sorry.

Had you stuck around for twenty minutes, you would have found that any edits to a wiki entry will be corrected, because they are highly monitored, especially by the authors. There is a reputation system for the authors in order to develop incentives for good authorship. Any edits to a post will be rejected if they are not factually correct and within a short amount of time.

The false information was what was changed. The editors changed it back to the lie within seconds.

 

[UltimateReality]

Here we go...



Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, LIAR.

If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.

Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html

You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.

Oops...

Stupid. Again you haven't followed the post. We are talking about her lies about me, not YWC. Keep up for Darwin's sake!!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

It is tiring to constantly have your ass handed to you, so i can truly empathize! Your position is indefensible, and that is the problem. You rely on pure speculation about probabilities, which you can't actually establish, because we no other instances of abiogenesis to look at. To say there is no possibility that they "floated" together is simply ignorance, hence, part of the basis for your argument from ignorance. You do not know this at all, and have no empirical or logical basis from which to make such a claim.

You mean like how I just owned you on the QUATERNARY code post??? You are so naive. I'm done arguing with you. You have no basis for your rebuttals. Class Dismissed!!

Did you just say you "owned" me? Are we teenagers

No, but your writing style and failure to grasp basic concepts would indicate you are.

in a gaming forum? Holy cow.

Excuse me, but have you not been stating all along that DNA is digital????

Digital code is binary. You know that right? It's not quaternary. So, how are you equating a binary code and quaternary code and saying they are the same?

I think you just got kicked out of the class you were teaching.

You should quit while you are ahead. Your lack of knowledge on basic concepts is embarrassing.

DNA is digital. Binary code is a form of digital code but not all digital signals are binary. Again your logic is faulty!!!

Digital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.

Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.

Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.

NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.

You hit it out of the park the same people who run to the miller urey exercise as an answer turn to abiogenesis as ann answer while the science community dismisses them both. There is a reason the science community claim ignorance on the origins question.

 

[Hollie]

I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.

No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.

From your favorite "reliable" source:

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?

All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.

What the IDiots don't understand is that none of their feverish attempts to equate DNA being the result of intervention by magical gawds is in any way evidence for gawds. There is nothing to indicate that DNA is the "machine" that fundies falsely label DNA as being. The fundie argument relies on false labels, bad analogies and inventive flights of fanciful spirit worlds to cobble together truly silly supernatural realms.

All of this is done with no more authority or evidence than the four word "the gawds did it".

 

[UltimateReality]

No! I have not concluded that and I have stated this before!! DNA is a QUATERNARY code. I have posted up numerous times the conclusion is just as sound as any Darwin made because it is based on his method and "References to Causes Now in Operation." Your rebuttal is a "because I say so" argument. You are going to have to come up with something better. Merely repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.

From your favorite "reliable" source:

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).

If DNA is a quaternary code, then how can DNA be digital, as you claim, if digital code is binary?

All of this is irrelevant, anyways. It truly does not matter how complex or specifiable DNA is. ID will always be an argument from ignorance. This is what you don't understand. You can talk about the improbabilities of amino acids coming together, or the shannon information in DNA. You can not get around this basic fact, which is why ID is not science. They are not drawing sound conclusions. It is any wonder to you that other scientists don't see ID as science? That should raise a red flag. I truly don't understand your efforts to try and convince us how amazing DNA is. This is your ONLY "evidence?" Wow. ID is really weak.

What the IDiots don't understand is that none of their feverish attempts to equate DNA being the result of intervention by magical gawds is in any way evidence for gawds. There is nothing to indicate that DNA is the "machine" that fundies falsely label DNA as being. The fundie argument relies on false labels, bad analogies and inventive flights of fanciful spirit worlds to cobble together truly silly supernatural realms.

All of this is done with no more authority or evidence than the four word "the gawds did it".

So you would deny researchers at Harvard used DNA as a DIGITAL media storage device???

How long will you continue to ignore my question to admit you lied about me? You can't get out of this unscathed. Either you continue to be too stupid to differentiate between myself and YWC or you blatantly and overtly misrepresented information about me to discredit me. Which is it?

 

[Youwerecreated]

That itself would be a lie. Link us to a proven lie, you creepy stalker.

Here we go...

Well, you do lack education. When you cut and paste from Harun Yahya, you are actually screaming out that lack education.

Your incessant use of gargantuan, pink fonts in failed attempts to deflect from addressing refutations of your cut and pasted Harun Yahya nonsense only reinforces your inability to compose coherent sentences.

Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, LIAR.

If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.

Here's the link. It's just a shame that neither if you two could have owned up to your blatant lies. But that seems typical for fundies.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5882646-post7458.html

You can click the "about" button. Additionally, you can do your own search and find many other instances of links to Harun Yahya.

Do you understand left and right handed amino acids and their importance ?

 

[Hollie]

Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.

Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.

NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.

You hit it out of the park the same people who run to the miller urey exercise as an answer turn to abiogenesis as ann answer while the science community dismisses them both. There is a reason the science community claim ignorance on the origins question.

The science community does not possess the data regarding "origins" that would stand to peer review.

Admittedly, the Christian creationist ministries are held to no such academic or professional standards. As we see with the Christian creationists in this thread, such standards as proof and ethical behavior is secondary to pounding the message of their religious dogma.

There is a reason why Christian creationists demand an exception from the standards of proof, peer review and ethical behavior they demand of science. Simply, the religious/ creationist arguments are arguments from ignorance and by their nature, require an abandonment of ethical standards of proof that is maintained by science.