Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Based upon the mathematical and scientific nature of our universe, God (higher intelligence) is most likely wearing a white lab coat, not a white robe.

The size and age of the universe is so vast that it is very likely that higher intelligence does exist, even the Drake equation puts a conservative estimate at 10,000 civilizations within our galaxy alone. Even if you shrunk that number to 100 it would be probable that at least a couple would be far advanced beyond us, even appearing Godlike and outside our awareness. It is up to each individual whether to worship such intelligence. I choose not to and appreciate that those who do not push that "belief" upon others. If believers took that course of action there would be far less violence on our world.

Believe as you wish.

Why not? That is exactly what you are doing.

That is correct.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Based upon the mathematical and scientific nature of our universe, God (higher intelligence) is most likely wearing a white lab coat, not a white robe.

The size and age of the universe is so vast that it is very likely that higher intelligence does exist, even the Drake equation puts a conservative estimate at 10,000 civilizations within our galaxy alone. Even if you shrunk that number to 100 it would be probable that at least a couple would be far advanced beyond us, even appearing Godlike and outside our awareness. It is up to each individual whether to worship such intelligence. I choose not to and appreciate that those who do not push that "belief" upon others. If believers took that course of action there would be far less violence on our world.

Believe as you wish.

Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.

My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.

 

[daws101]

Thank you for googling the question it shows your ignorance in science and it shows you will believe everything you read on the internet.

Now since you read the article on it why do you think the answer is correct ?

SORRY SLAPDICK YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN and that was a not college level science that was high school.
but thanks for playing.

You're a liar because they were running tests on it just recently and it became theory because they found that Rna can replicate itself. When were you in high school fool

Now I will shoot a hole in this theory because so what if it can replicate itself because RNA transcribes the DNA code so that it can be translated into proteins. It not only transcribes Dna but it keeps a copy.

You should not try bullshiting your way with me when will you learn.

Rna is useless without Dna.

Just in case you run off to fetch an article on a virus as an argument the The Dna information for the virus came from the host cell so it could replicate itself.

again you're shooting blanks:
here's a short history of rna Research on RNA has led to many important biological discoveries and numerous Nobel Prizes. Nucleic acids were discovered in 1868 by Friedrich Miescher, who called the material 'nuclein' since it was found in the nucleus.[57] It was later discovered that prokaryotic cells, which do not have a nucleus, also contain nucleic acids. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was suspected already in 1939.[58] Severo Ochoa won the 1959 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Arthur Kornberg) after he discovered an enzyme that can synthesize RNA in the laboratory.[59] However, the enzyme discovered by Ochoa (polynucleotide phosphorylase) was later shown to be responsible for RNA degradation, not RNA synthesis.

The sequence of the 77 nucleotides of a yeast tRNA was found by Robert W. Holley in 1965,[60] winning Holley the 1968 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg). In 1967, Carl Woese hypothesized that RNA might be catalytic and suggested that the earliest forms of life (self-replicating molecules) could have relied on RNA both to carry genetic information and to catalyze biochemical reactions—an RNA world.[61][62]

During the early 1970s retroviruses and reverse transcriptase were discovered, showing for the first time that enzymes could copy RNA into DNA (the opposite of the usual route for transmission of genetic information). For this work, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Temin were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1975. In 1976, Walter Fiers and his team determined the first complete nucleotide sequence of an RNA virus genome, that of bacteriophage MS2.[63]

In 1977, introns and RNA splicing were discovered in both mammalian viruses and in cellular genes, resulting in a 1993 Nobel to Philip Sharp and Richard Roberts. Catalytic RNA molecules (ribozymes) were discovered in the early 1980s, leading to a 1989 Nobel award to Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman. In 1990 it was found in Petunia that introduced genes can silence similar genes of the plant's own, now known to be a result of RNA interference.[64][65]

At about the same time, 22 nt long RNAs, now called microRNAs, were found to have a role in the development of C. elegans.[66] Studies on RNA interference gleaned a Nobel Prize for Andrew Fire and Craig Mello in 2006, and another Nobel was awarded for studies on transcription of RNA to Roger Kornberg in the same year


I post this slapdick to show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me...

btw About me


Industry
Religion

Occupation
apologetics evangelism

Location
Des Moines, IA, United States

Introduction
Welcome to You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.! by Have You Not Read Ministries. We are here to show you that you do not need to have a degree in science to understand God's world, how it works and to see why evolutionary science does not fit.

Interests
Creation Evolution Jesus salvation and the inerrant word of God

Favorite Movies
Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Timechanger, Passion of the Christ

Favorite Music
Third Day, Kutless, Jeremy Camp

Favorite Books
The Bible, Books by Answers in Genesis and The Way of the Master.


Question: Are you a good person? Have you ever: Told a lie? Stolen something? Used the Lords name in vain? Looked at someone with lust? Liked something with more passion than God? Hated someone? Not reserved one day a week to honor God? Argued with your parents? Really wanted something that belonged to someone else? Had something more important to you than God? That's all 10 Commandments!

this is your source? Blogger: User Profile: You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.!

as always based on a false premise.
here's your ass again.

 

[daws101]

Believe as you wish.

Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.

My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.

that's total bullshit as you spend weekends and vacations pimping your falsehoods on this site.

 

[Youwerecreated]

SORRY SLAPDICK YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN and that was a not college level science that was high school.
but thanks for playing.

You're a liar because they were running tests on it just recently and it became theory because they found that Rna can replicate itself. When were you in high school fool

Now I will shoot a hole in this theory because so what if it can replicate itself because RNA transcribes the DNA code so that it can be translated into proteins. It not only transcribes Dna but it keeps a copy.

You should not try bullshiting your way with me when will you learn.

Rna is useless without Dna.

Just in case you run off to fetch an article on a virus as an argument the The Dna information for the virus came from the host cell so it could replicate itself.

again you're shooting blanks:
here's a short history of rna Research on RNA has led to many important biological discoveries and numerous Nobel Prizes. Nucleic acids were discovered in 1868 by Friedrich Miescher, who called the material 'nuclein' since it was found in the nucleus.[57] It was later discovered that prokaryotic cells, which do not have a nucleus, also contain nucleic acids. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was suspected already in 1939.[58] Severo Ochoa won the 1959 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Arthur Kornberg) after he discovered an enzyme that can synthesize RNA in the laboratory.[59] However, the enzyme discovered by Ochoa (polynucleotide phosphorylase) was later shown to be responsible for RNA degradation, not RNA synthesis.

The sequence of the 77 nucleotides of a yeast tRNA was found by Robert W. Holley in 1965,[60] winning Holley the 1968 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg). In 1967, Carl Woese hypothesized that RNA might be catalytic and suggested that the earliest forms of life (self-replicating molecules) could have relied on RNA both to carry genetic information and to catalyze biochemical reactions—an RNA world.[61][62]

During the early 1970s retroviruses and reverse transcriptase were discovered, showing for the first time that enzymes could copy RNA into DNA (the opposite of the usual route for transmission of genetic information). For this work, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Temin were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1975. In 1976, Walter Fiers and his team determined the first complete nucleotide sequence of an RNA virus genome, that of bacteriophage MS2.[63]

In 1977, introns and RNA splicing were discovered in both mammalian viruses and in cellular genes, resulting in a 1993 Nobel to Philip Sharp and Richard Roberts. Catalytic RNA molecules (ribozymes) were discovered in the early 1980s, leading to a 1989 Nobel award to Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman. In 1990 it was found in Petunia that introduced genes can silence similar genes of the plant's own, now known to be a result of RNA interference.[64][65]

At about the same time, 22 nt long RNAs, now called microRNAs, were found to have a role in the development of C. elegans.[66] Studies on RNA interference gleaned a Nobel Prize for Andrew Fire and Craig Mello in 2006, and another Nobel was awarded for studies on transcription of RNA to Roger Kornberg in the same year


I post this slapdick to show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me...

btw About me


Industry
Religion

Occupation
apologetics evangelism

Location
Des Moines, IA, United States

Introduction
Welcome to You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.! by Have You Not Read Ministries. We are here to show you that you do not need to have a degree in science to understand God's world, how it works and to see why evolutionary science does not fit.

Interests
Creation Evolution Jesus salvation and the inerrant word of God

Favorite Movies
Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Timechanger, Passion of the Christ

Favorite Music
Third Day, Kutless, Jeremy Camp

Favorite Books
The Bible, Books by Answers in Genesis and The Way of the Master.


Question: Are you a good person? Have you ever: Told a lie? Stolen something? Used the Lords name in vain? Looked at someone with lust? Liked something with more passion than God? Hated someone? Not reserved one day a week to honor God? Argued with your parents? Really wanted something that belonged to someone else? Had something more important to you than God? That's all 10 Commandments!

this is your source? Blogger: User Profile: You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.!

as always based on a false premise.
here's your ass again.

They did not show until recently that Rna could be self replicating what you're not understanding is reverse transcriptase This enzyme, found in the protein shell, transcribes RNA back into DNA, which is then inserted into the genome of the host. You see they failed in proving their point because the Rna stored the original Dna message and it is injected in the host cells Genome so they can reproduce.

Originally they were hypothesising That Rna was self replicating because they needed a molecule that was self replicating so they could teach spontaneous generation. They showed that but it took Rna that had a copy of Dna for it to happen other wise this virus could not invade the host cell and be reproduced.

So it was an epic fail as I said and Rna is useless in producing life absent of Dna. Rna is the messenger got it ?

So no it did not become theory until recently it was only hypothesized in the 60's and 70's

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.

My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.

that's total bullshit as you spend weekends and vacations pimping your falsehoods on this site.

Because I participate in discussions on here does not mean I lose sleep over people that don't believe as I do. That might be what drives you but it does not drive me.

 

[Hollie]

Believe as you wish.

Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.

My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.

Let’s be honest. You’re consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds. You’re incensed by it. That’s exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing. It’s also why you’re completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science. It’s why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited “quotes” even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why not? That is exactly what you are doing. It just is that those who take a scientific point of view don't murder or start wars to "convert" others to their way of thinking.

My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.

Let’s be honest. You’re consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds. You’re incensed by it. That’s exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing. It’s also why you’re completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science. It’s why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited “quotes” even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.

Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?

 

[Hollie]

My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.

Let’s be honest. You’re consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds. You’re incensed by it. That’s exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing. It’s also why you’re completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science. It’s why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited “quotes” even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.

Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?

What "bullshit" would that be?

It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let’s be honest. You’re consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds. You’re incensed by it. That’s exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing. It’s also why you’re completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science. It’s why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited “quotes” even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.

Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?

What "bullshit" would that be?

It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?

when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.

 

[daws101]

You're a liar because they were running tests on it just recently and it became theory because they found that Rna can replicate itself. When were you in high school fool

Now I will shoot a hole in this theory because so what if it can replicate itself because RNA transcribes the DNA code so that it can be translated into proteins. It not only transcribes Dna but it keeps a copy.

You should not try bullshiting your way with me when will you learn.

Rna is useless without Dna.

Just in case you run off to fetch an article on a virus as an argument the The Dna information for the virus came from the host cell so it could replicate itself.

again you're shooting blanks:
here's a short history of rna Research on RNA has led to many important biological discoveries and numerous Nobel Prizes. Nucleic acids were discovered in 1868 by Friedrich Miescher, who called the material 'nuclein' since it was found in the nucleus.[57] It was later discovered that prokaryotic cells, which do not have a nucleus, also contain nucleic acids. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was suspected already in 1939.[58] Severo Ochoa won the 1959 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Arthur Kornberg) after he discovered an enzyme that can synthesize RNA in the laboratory.[59] However, the enzyme discovered by Ochoa (polynucleotide phosphorylase) was later shown to be responsible for RNA degradation, not RNA synthesis.

The sequence of the 77 nucleotides of a yeast tRNA was found by Robert W. Holley in 1965,[60] winning Holley the 1968 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg). In 1967, Carl Woese hypothesized that RNA might be catalytic and suggested that the earliest forms of life (self-replicating molecules) could have relied on RNA both to carry genetic information and to catalyze biochemical reactions—an RNA world.[61][62]

During the early 1970s retroviruses and reverse transcriptase were discovered, showing for the first time that enzymes could copy RNA into DNA (the opposite of the usual route for transmission of genetic information). For this work, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Temin were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1975. In 1976, Walter Fiers and his team determined the first complete nucleotide sequence of an RNA virus genome, that of bacteriophage MS2.[63]

In 1977, introns and RNA splicing were discovered in both mammalian viruses and in cellular genes, resulting in a 1993 Nobel to Philip Sharp and Richard Roberts. Catalytic RNA molecules (ribozymes) were discovered in the early 1980s, leading to a 1989 Nobel award to Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman. In 1990 it was found in Petunia that introduced genes can silence similar genes of the plant's own, now known to be a result of RNA interference.[64][65]

At about the same time, 22 nt long RNAs, now called microRNAs, were found to have a role in the development of C. elegans.[66] Studies on RNA interference gleaned a Nobel Prize for Andrew Fire and Craig Mello in 2006, and another Nobel was awarded for studies on transcription of RNA to Roger Kornberg in the same year


I post this slapdick to show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me...

btw About me


Industry
Religion

Occupation
apologetics evangelism

Location
Des Moines, IA, United States

Introduction
Welcome to You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.! by Have You Not Read Ministries. We are here to show you that you do not need to have a degree in science to understand God's world, how it works and to see why evolutionary science does not fit.

Interests
Creation Evolution Jesus salvation and the inerrant word of God

Favorite Movies
Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Timechanger, Passion of the Christ

Favorite Music
Third Day, Kutless, Jeremy Camp

Favorite Books
The Bible, Books by Answers in Genesis and The Way of the Master.


Question: Are you a good person? Have you ever: Told a lie? Stolen something? Used the Lords name in vain? Looked at someone with lust? Liked something with more passion than God? Hated someone? Not reserved one day a week to honor God? Argued with your parents? Really wanted something that belonged to someone else? Had something more important to you than God? That's all 10 Commandments!

this is your source? Blogger: User Profile: You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.!

as always based on a false premise.
here's your ass again.

They did not show until recently that Rna could be self replicating what you're not understanding is reverse transcriptase This enzyme, found in the protein shell, transcribes RNA back into DNA, which is then inserted into the genome of the host. You see they failed in proving their point because the Rna stored the original Dna message and it is injected in the host cells Genome so they can reproduce.

Originally they were hypothesising That Rna was self replicating because they needed a molecule that was self replicating so they could teach spontaneous generation. They showed that but it took Rna that had a copy of Dna for it to happen other wise this virus could not invade the host cell and be reproduced.

So it was an epic fail as I said and Rna is useless in producing life absent of Dna. Rna is the messenger got it ?

So no it did not become theory until recently it was only hypothesized in the 60's and 70's

your answer has nothing to do with the questions you asked me. rna and what year I graduated HS. the rest of you babble in no proof of a creator god or great flood .
I was taught genetic THEORY as apart of evolutionary biology in high school in my junior and senior years --1976 -1977 .
as always the epic fail is yours.
one day when you grow up maybe you'll realize your not the smartest kid in the class or school or town or county or state...

 

[daws101]

My beliefs are simple you can believe as you wish. I do not lose sleep over someone not believing as I do.

that's total bullshit as you spend weekends and vacations pimping your falsehoods on this site.

Because I participate in discussions on here does not mean I lose sleep over people that don't believe as I do. That might be what drives you but it does not drive me.

bullshit! what drives you is a messiah complex and an absolute mania for thinking you're right all the time when the truth is you're wrong about just about everything all the time.

 

[daws101]

Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?

What "bullshit" would that be?

It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?

when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.

do I REALLY NEED TO point out how everything you just posted is a total false hood.
I know what your religion is no matter what bogus name you give your little coven of believers you're an evangelical creationist..
my guess is your leader has no formal religious training.
he might even be you.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie I come on here for the entertainment and maybe a few people will look beyond the bullshit people like you and daws spread but people can believe as they choose. Now why do you spend so much time on here ?

What "bullshit" would that be?

It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?

when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.

You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?

You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.

 

[daws101]

What "bullshit" would that be?

It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?

when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.

You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?

You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.

amen (pun intended)

CHRISTIAN – A follower or believer in Jesus.

FUNDAMENTALIST One who believes the Bible is literally true and must be followed exactly.

Therefore they are followers of the bible and not Jesus making them non Christians!!!

But worse is to follow it also makes them ideologists.

IDEOLOGY An idea that is false or held for the wrong reasons but is believed with such conviction as to be irrefutable.

So Christians have a loving and forgiving god and fundamentalist - well - Just are not Christians!!!!

So many Christians are praying fervently that they will discover the loving god and start acting like it but sadly realize that is so unlikely!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

again you're shooting blanks:
here's a short history of rna Research on RNA has led to many important biological discoveries and numerous Nobel Prizes. Nucleic acids were discovered in 1868 by Friedrich Miescher, who called the material 'nuclein' since it was found in the nucleus.[57] It was later discovered that prokaryotic cells, which do not have a nucleus, also contain nucleic acids. The role of RNA in protein synthesis was suspected already in 1939.[58] Severo Ochoa won the 1959 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Arthur Kornberg) after he discovered an enzyme that can synthesize RNA in the laboratory.[59] However, the enzyme discovered by Ochoa (polynucleotide phosphorylase) was later shown to be responsible for RNA degradation, not RNA synthesis.

The sequence of the 77 nucleotides of a yeast tRNA was found by Robert W. Holley in 1965,[60] winning Holley the 1968 Nobel Prize in Medicine (shared with Har Gobind Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg). In 1967, Carl Woese hypothesized that RNA might be catalytic and suggested that the earliest forms of life (self-replicating molecules) could have relied on RNA both to carry genetic information and to catalyze biochemical reactions—an RNA world.[61][62]

During the early 1970s retroviruses and reverse transcriptase were discovered, showing for the first time that enzymes could copy RNA into DNA (the opposite of the usual route for transmission of genetic information). For this work, David Baltimore, Renato Dulbecco and Howard Temin were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1975. In 1976, Walter Fiers and his team determined the first complete nucleotide sequence of an RNA virus genome, that of bacteriophage MS2.[63]

In 1977, introns and RNA splicing were discovered in both mammalian viruses and in cellular genes, resulting in a 1993 Nobel to Philip Sharp and Richard Roberts. Catalytic RNA molecules (ribozymes) were discovered in the early 1980s, leading to a 1989 Nobel award to Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman. In 1990 it was found in Petunia that introduced genes can silence similar genes of the plant's own, now known to be a result of RNA interference.[64][65]

At about the same time, 22 nt long RNAs, now called microRNAs, were found to have a role in the development of C. elegans.[66] Studies on RNA interference gleaned a Nobel Prize for Andrew Fire and Craig Mello in 2006, and another Nobel was awarded for studies on transcription of RNA to Roger Kornberg in the same year


I post this slapdick to show you high schools were teaching gene "theory" as part of biology in 1977 the year I graduated high school.
so as always somebody's talking out their ass and it's not me...

btw About me


Industry
Religion

Occupation
apologetics evangelism

Location
Des Moines, IA, United States

Introduction
Welcome to You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.! by Have You Not Read Ministries. We are here to show you that you do not need to have a degree in science to understand God's world, how it works and to see why evolutionary science does not fit.

Interests
Creation Evolution Jesus salvation and the inerrant word of God

Favorite Movies
Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Timechanger, Passion of the Christ

Favorite Music
Third Day, Kutless, Jeremy Camp

Favorite Books
The Bible, Books by Answers in Genesis and The Way of the Master.


Question: Are you a good person? Have you ever: Told a lie? Stolen something? Used the Lords name in vain? Looked at someone with lust? Liked something with more passion than God? Hated someone? Not reserved one day a week to honor God? Argued with your parents? Really wanted something that belonged to someone else? Had something more important to you than God? That's all 10 Commandments!

this is your source? Blogger: User Profile: You Don't Have To Have A Ph.D.!

as always based on a false premise.
here's your ass again.

They did not show until recently that Rna could be self replicating what you're not understanding is reverse transcriptase This enzyme, found in the protein shell, transcribes RNA back into DNA, which is then inserted into the genome of the host. You see they failed in proving their point because the Rna stored the original Dna message and it is injected in the host cells Genome so they can reproduce.

Originally they were hypothesising That Rna was self replicating because they needed a molecule that was self replicating so they could teach spontaneous generation. They showed that but it took Rna that had a copy of Dna for it to happen other wise this virus could not invade the host cell and be reproduced.

So it was an epic fail as I said and Rna is useless in producing life absent of Dna. Rna is the messenger got it ?

So no it did not become theory until recently it was only hypothesized in the 60's and 70's

your answer has nothing to do with the questions you asked me. rna and what year I graduated HS. the rest of you babble in no proof of a creator god or great flood .
I was taught genetic THEORY as apart of evolutionary biology in high school in my junior and senior years --1976 -1977 .
as always the epic fail is yours.
one day when you grow up maybe you'll realize your not the smartest kid in the class or school or town or county or state...

Here is the question that was asked.
According to theory earth's earliest organisms was made up of what MOLECULE ?
Daws do you know the difference between theory and Hypothesis ? When you were in High School you may have heard something about the Hypothesis but it was not theory. You said you learned this in High school I said it was not a theory when you were in high
school.

Genetics is not even what we are discussing Genetics deal with heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.We were discussing Molecular biology that is the study of structures and function of the macromolecules proteins and nucleic acids.

I think you had limited science and you rush off and copy and paste things you think answer the questions when challenged.

 

[Youwerecreated]

that's total bullshit as you spend weekends and vacations pimping your falsehoods on this site.

Because I participate in discussions on here does not mean I lose sleep over people that don't believe as I do. That might be what drives you but it does not drive me.

bullshit! what drives you is a messiah complex and an absolute mania for thinking you're right all the time when the truth is you're wrong about just about everything all the time.

Daws I am not right all the time and when I am wrong I can put my big boy pants on and fess up how bout you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What "bullshit" would that be?

It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?

when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.

do I REALLY NEED TO point out how everything you just posted is a total false hood.
I know what your religion is no matter what bogus name you give your little coven of believers you're an evangelical creationist..
my guess is your leader has no formal religious training.
he might even be you.

I have never mentioned my religion fact is I am no fan of religion. Religion was mans creation not Gods creation so you can try and show this so called religion That I supposedly push on others.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What "bullshit" would that be?

It's not "bullshit" to confront lies and falsehoods. That's precisely what you have repeatedly dumped in this thread to promote your religion. Do you find it at all paradoxical that you use your religious views to promote lies and falsehoods?

when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.

You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?

You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.

Peer reviews impress you hollie ?

Global Warming Hoax: Peer Reviewed Journal Papers Showing Natural Causes for Climate Change

Blog: Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked

 

[Youwerecreated]

when have I ever mentioned my religion ? I go through what you people post and point out errors ,contradictions,and correct that is not spreading lies and falsehoods. I also point out things you people try to pass off as facts which are only based on conjecture.

You give yourself credit for doing nothing. I can't recall you refuting the peer reviewed science presented to you. What you have done is post nonsense from Christian crestionist websites. Have you considered that using Christian fundie websites ( excluding the Harun Yahya nonsense), and posting verses from the various bibles pre-announces your religious affiliation?

You are a poor candidate for making claims regarding conjecture when using creationist sources for your posts. It's really laughable to see you suggesting that the notoriously inept and biblical literalist creationist websites you use as "sources" In any way refutes the relevant science community.

amen (pun intended)

CHRISTIAN – A follower or believer in Jesus.

FUNDAMENTALIST One who believes the Bible is literally true and must be followed exactly.

Therefore they are followers of the bible and not Jesus making them non Christians!!!

But worse is to follow it also makes them ideologists.

IDEOLOGY An idea that is false or held for the wrong reasons but is believed with such conviction as to be irrefutable.

So Christians have a loving and forgiving god and fundamentalist - well - Just are not Christians!!!!

So many Christians are praying fervently that they will discover the loving god and start acting like it but sadly realize that is so unlikely!!!

Christianity is a philosophy not a religion. catholics,baptists,pentecostals are religions.