Science debunks Abiogenesis.

[there4eyeM]

What's with the attack on 'Winterborn'? Can anyone objective explain this?

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't care who coined the phrase. For you to claim that Pantheism is just polite atheism requires that you do not know the definition of one of the terms. That is not on the education system. That is on you.

Right. So here's the thing.

You're an angry little man on the internet that hates everything he doesn't agree with, and you haven't been taught anything past what you can Google in the heat of an argument in a very long time.

I forgive your rudeness as you dig deeper into your own ignorance.

LMAO!! Sorry, that doesn't work either. First you show you don't know the meaning of a word. Then you try to blame it on the education system. And now it is about my rudeness???

Lol. Not even close.

You're still on my nuts? Apologies, I didn't know you were also gay on top of uneducated.

Uneducated? From the guy who did not know the actual definition of pantheism? That is hilarious.

Funny, when I point out your error, you spend post after post attacking me. No admission that you were wrong. Just attack the messenger. And you have the gall to call me uneducated and angry?

Yes, I called you that, and I've been smiling as you come crawling back every time for the last word, on command.

Good boy.

And still no admission that you were wrong. Imagine that.

But keep dancing around pretending it is about me. It makes I think even more amusing.

 

[SixFoot]

Right. So here's the thing.

You're an angry little man on the internet that hates everything he doesn't agree with, and you haven't been taught anything past what you can Google in the heat of an argument in a very long time.

I forgive your rudeness as you dig deeper into your own ignorance.

LMAO!! Sorry, that doesn't work either. First you show you don't know the meaning of a word. Then you try to blame it on the education system. And now it is about my rudeness???

Lol. Not even close.

You're still on my nuts? Apologies, I didn't know you were also gay on top of uneducated.

Uneducated? From the guy who did not know the actual definition of pantheism? That is hilarious.

Funny, when I point out your error, you spend post after post attacking me. No admission that you were wrong. Just attack the messenger. And you have the gall to call me uneducated and angry?

Yes, I called you that, and I've been smiling as you come crawling back every time for the last word, on command.

Good boy.

And still no admission that you were wrong. Imagine that.

But keep dancing around pretending it is about me. It makes I think even more amusing.

See? You physically cannot go without the last word.

Like I said, angry little man who hasn't learned anything he can't Google in the midst of an argument.

Very generic.

This is why you get treated like a bitch.

Fear not though, I have class soon, and you have Google to pound on. The last word will finally be yours.

 

[WinterBorn]

LMAO!! Sorry, that doesn't work either. First you show you don't know the meaning of a word. Then you try to blame it on the education system. And now it is about my rudeness???

Lol. Not even close.

You're still on my nuts? Apologies, I didn't know you were also gay on top of uneducated.

Uneducated? From the guy who did not know the actual definition of pantheism? That is hilarious.

Funny, when I point out your error, you spend post after post attacking me. No admission that you were wrong. Just attack the messenger. And you have the gall to call me uneducated and angry?

Yes, I called you that, and I've been smiling as you come crawling back every time for the last word, on command.

Good boy.

And still no admission that you were wrong. Imagine that.

But keep dancing around pretending it is about me. It makes I think even more amusing.

See? You physically cannot go without the last word.

Like I said, angry little man who hasn't learned anything he can't Google in the midst of an argument.

Very generic.

This is why you get treated like a bitch.

Fear not though, I have class soon, and you have Google to pound on. The last word will finally be yours.

Funny thing, I did Google the definition of "pantheism" to make sure what I knew was accurate. You are the angry one. How dare someone correct you with facts, huh?

No junior, I am not angry. I am amused.

 

[WinterBorn]

What's with the attack on 'Winterborn'? Can anyone objective explain this?

Some people get pissy when you correct them. Lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

 

[RWNJ]

All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Well, OK. If you want to get technical about it.

 

[RWNJ]

All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

 

[PoliticalChic]

All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.

 

[RWNJ]

All you have to do is ignore the fact that no one has seen this RNA, or even how it might have functioned, and it makes sense.

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.

Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price. Most of what people consider evolution is actually adaptation. There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation. Mutations actually destroy information. They never create anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.

Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price. Most of what people consider evolution is actually adaptation. There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation. Mutations actually destroy information. They never create anything.

"Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price."


As I stated:
And a few of same are beneficial.



"There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation."

This is disingenuous...and you are hurting our side.

It is akin to saying that rearranging the alphabet to form different words in not making different words.

 

[rdean]

Here is a scientific discussion of the requirements for life and why a naturalistic origin is, quite simply, impossible. The more science learns about life, the more absurd it looks for a naturalistic origin.

Origin of life - creation.com

Not just creation.

"Magical" creation!

 

[there4eyeM]

Um,no, we have RNA operating in our cells now, and it is well known and documented.

RNA - Wikipedia

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.

Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price. Most of what people consider evolution is actually adaptation. There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation. Mutations actually destroy information. They never create anything.

Of course, 'beneficial' is a human term for the result. Nature is neutral.

 

[RWNJ]

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.

Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price. Most of what people consider evolution is actually adaptation. There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation. Mutations actually destroy information. They never create anything.

"Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price."


As I stated:
And a few of same are beneficial.



"There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation."

This is disingenuous...and you are hurting our side.

It is akin to saying that rearranging the alphabet to form different words in not making different words.

It would help if you could provide an example of a beneficial mutation. I know of none that do not have a down side. For instance, there is one that makes one immune to sickle cell anemia. However, it also causes another condition that is harmful to ones health.

Now, when I say that there is no example of adding new information, I mean just that. DNA can be rearranged, but it cannot add new information. In other words, the number of genes in DNA remain constant. Mutations destroy information. That is a scientific fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.

Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price. Most of what people consider evolution is actually adaptation. There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation. Mutations actually destroy information. They never create anything.

"Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price."


As I stated:
And a few of same are beneficial.



"There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation."

This is disingenuous...and you are hurting our side.

It is akin to saying that rearranging the alphabet to form different words in not making different words.

It would help if you could provide an example of a beneficial mutation. I know of none that do not have a down side. For instance, there is one that makes one immune to sickle cell anemia. However, it also causes another condition that is harmful to ones health.

Now, when I say that there is no example of adding new information, I mean just that. DNA can be rearranged, but it cannot add new information. In other words, the number of genes in DNA remain constant. Mutations destroy information. That is a scientific fact.

"It would help if you could provide an example of a beneficial mutation."

No it wouldn't.

What I said was that deletions and insertions result in different combinations of nucleotides.
In laboratory experiments I have found changes in metabolism due to mutations.....ability to metabolize new sources, or no longer metabolize original ones.

Microevolution in the sense of variations occurring within an already existing species is hardly "evolution." Darwin's theory doesn't accomplish its goal, to account for the diversity of life....but you are not telling the whole truth if you deny that such changes occur.

 

[RWNJ]

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.

Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price. Most of what people consider evolution is actually adaptation. There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation. Mutations actually destroy information. They never create anything.

"Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price."


As I stated:
And a few of same are beneficial.



"There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation."

This is disingenuous...and you are hurting our side.

It is akin to saying that rearranging the alphabet to form different words in not making different words.

It would help if you could provide an example of a beneficial mutation. I know of none that do not have a down side. For instance, there is one that makes one immune to sickle cell anemia. However, it also causes another condition that is harmful to ones health.

Now, when I say that there is no example of adding new information, I mean just that. DNA can be rearranged, but it cannot add new information. In other words, the number of genes in DNA remain constant. Mutations destroy information. That is a scientific fact.

"It would help if you could provide an example of a beneficial mutation."

No it wouldn't.

What I said was that deletions and insertions result in different combinations of nucleotides.
In laboratory experiments I have found changes in metabolism due to mutations.....ability to metabolize new sources, or no longer metabolize original ones.

Microevolution in the sense of variations occurring within an already existing species is hardly "evolution." Darwin's theory doesn't accomplish its goal, to account for the diversity of life....but you are not telling the whole truth if you deny that such changes occur.

What you say is correct, as far as it goes. However, DNA is fixed, as far as the number of chromosomes goes. That's what I meant about no new information being added.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have a question. Neither abiogenesis nor intelligent design can be proven.

What difference does it make which is accurate? Does anything actually change in today's world if one or the other is false?

 

[there4eyeM]

I have a question. Neither abiogenesis nor intelligent design can be proven.

What difference does it make which is accurate? Does anything actually change in today's world if one or the other is false?

Our existential sense of isolation would be affected by some proof of a 'Designer', but daily life would, indeed, remain daily life.

 

[Old Rocks]

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.

Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price. Most of what people consider evolution is actually adaptation. There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation. Mutations actually destroy information. They never create anything.

"Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price."


As I stated:
And a few of same are beneficial.



"There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation."

This is disingenuous...and you are hurting our side.

It is akin to saying that rearranging the alphabet to form different words in not making different words.

It would help if you could provide an example of a beneficial mutation. I know of none that do not have a down side. For instance, there is one that makes one immune to sickle cell anemia. However, it also causes another condition that is harmful to ones health.

Now, when I say that there is no example of adding new information, I mean just that. DNA can be rearranged, but it cannot add new information. In other words, the number of genes in DNA remain constant. Mutations destroy information. That is a scientific fact.

LOL Another fucking idiot. Yes, nature does add and subtract genes, and even whole chromosomes. I would suggest that you take some biology courses, but know you would never do that. You are too damned proud of your ignorance.

 

[Old Rocks]

True. But what I meant was that RNA was, supposedly, a precursor to DNA, that filled the role that DNA does now. Something that there is absolutely no evidence for.

DNA always remains in the nucleus.
The hereditary instructions for constructing proteins is transferred to the ribosomes...found in the cytoplasm....by RNA.

Here is a simulation of what goes on inside a cell. How can anyone watch this and think it all happened without a Creator?

I have the same perspective about the origin of life and the universe, that you do.

The strongest argument is about the 'Big Bang,' what came before...or didn't.

As for the changes in life, diversity, that allows an explanation for what we see in the world today, many of us who are believers......and the majority of scientists are such....are satisfied with the explanation that God provided the materials and the mechanics of evolution took over.

An example would be DNA replication is often accompanied by mutation.
And a few of same are beneficial.

Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price. Most of what people consider evolution is actually adaptation. There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation. Mutations actually destroy information. They never create anything.

"Very few mutations are beneficial. The majority are neutral or harmful. Even the beneficial ones come with a price."


As I stated:
And a few of same are beneficial.



"There is not a single example of life adding new information through mutation."

This is disingenuous...and you are hurting our side.

It is akin to saying that rearranging the alphabet to form different words in not making different words.

Harmful mutations die out. Beneficial ones live on and spread through the population. Read Stephan Jay Gould.