Origin of Life

Post by Andrew
Scientists know that for life
to get going there must be..
1. a cell that can reproduce itself
2. DNA
3. RNA
5. genetic information with
specified instructions
6. an host environment that
is conducive for life and
growth
All of the above must be
together at the **exact
same** time for there
to be any life.
So the question is..
What "origins model" fits
all of the above criteria?

We know it can't be God because nothing comes from nothing.

--
There are two types of people in this world
Atheists and the mentally ill

Andrew

2017-03-10 05:20:47 UTC

We know it can't be God
because nothing comes
from nothing.

Can you please answer the
question?

Lucifer Morningstar

2017-03-10 05:46:20 UTC

We know it can't be God
because nothing comes
from nothing.

Can you please answer the
question?

First life is impossible.

--
There are two types of people in this world
Atheists and the mentally ill

Andrew

2017-03-10 13:43:07 UTC

We know it can't be God
because nothing comes
from nothing.

Can you please answer the
question?

First life is impossible.

Absolutely so.

tesla sTinker

2017-03-27 18:40:39 UTC

God is omniscient omnipresent, which means
you cannot outrun Him Devil. Your punishment will come,
do count on it. Just because you cannot see Him, does not
mean its a truth that He is not there idiot.

We know it can't be God because nothing comes from nothing.

Lucifer Morningstar

2017-03-27 20:46:26 UTC

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:40:39 -0700, tesla sTinker

Post by tesla sTinker
God is omniscient omnipresent, which means
you cannot outrun Him Devil. Your punishment will come,
do count on it. Just because you cannot see Him, does not
mean its a truth that He is not there idiot.

God hates those who top post.*

Post by tesla sTinker

We know it can't be God because nothing comes from nothing.

*God hates everybody.

--
There are two types of people in this world
Atheists and the mentally ill

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-27 23:10:31 UTC

Post by tesla sTinker
God is omniscient omnipresent,

Sure. A fictional character can be anything the author wants. And Bronze
Age barbarians had an active imagination.

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

b***@m.nu

2017-03-27 23:37:18 UTC

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:40:39 -0700, tesla sTinker

If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to
intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But
that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which
means he is not omnipotent.

Wow you rely did not thing that one through did you? Just like the
dumb ass people that made up that notion so long ago. Are you retarded
or something or will you believe anything that you hear?

Post by tesla sTinker

We know it can't be God because nothing comes from nothing.

b***@m.nu

2017-03-28 01:21:36 UTC

Post by Lucifer Morningstar
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:40:39 -0700, tesla sTinker

oops forgot the part.....
That quote was from Richard Dawkins

there is always the argument if there is a fairy god that is
omniscient then it should be able to create a puzzle that even it
could not solve, Thus negating its omnisence

Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Wow you rely did not thing that one through did you? Just like the
dumb ass people that made up that notion so long ago. Are you retarded
or something or will you believe anything that you hear?

Post by tesla sTinker

We know it can't be God because nothing comes from nothing.

John Locke

2017-03-10 05:20:45 UTC

...you mean "God did it" ?? I don't think so.

We don't yet know exactly how life began but we're getting closer...no
thanks, of course, to creationist nonsense.

Here's some reading material for you:

First life: The search for the first replicator:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251.300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator/
OR
https://tinyurl.com/hjesvld

Life must have begun with a simple molecule that could reproduce
itself and now we think we know how to make one

As far back as the 1960s, a few of those intelligent organisms began
to suspect that the first self-replicating molecules were made of RNA,
a close cousin of DNA. This idea has always had a huge problem, though
there was no known way by which RNA molecules could have formed on
the primordial Earth. And if RNA molecules couldnt form
spontaneously, how could self-replicating RNA molecules arise? Did
some other replicator come first? If so, what was it? The answer is
finally beginning to emerge.

When biologists first started to ponder how life arose, the question
seemed baffling. In all organisms alive today, the hard work is done
by proteins. Proteins can twist and fold into a wild diversity of
shapes, so they can do just about anything, including acting as
enzymes, substances that catalyse a huge range of chemical reactions.
However, the information needed to make proteins is stored in DNA
molecules. You cant make new proteins without DNA, and you cant make
new DNA without proteins. So which came first, proteins or DNA?

The discovery in the 1960s that RNA could fold like a protein, albeit
not into such complex structures, suggested an answer. If RNA could
catalyse reactions as well as storing information, some RNA molecules
might be capable of making more RNA molecules. And if that was the
case, RNA replicators would have had no need for proteins. They could
do everything themselves.

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

RNA world easier to make
Ingenious chemistry shows how nucleotides may have formed in the
primordial soup:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html

Further Evidence that Life Might Have Started with RNA
https://tinyurl.com/zgl83nm

Andrew

2017-03-10 13:42:58 UTC

Post by John Locke

Post by Andrew
Scientists know that for life
to get going there must be..
1. a cell that can reproduce itself
2. DNA
3. RNA
5. genetic information with
specified instructions
6. a host environment that
is conducive for life and
growth
All of the above must be
together at the **exact
same** time for there
to be any life.
So the question is..
What "origins model" fits
all of the above criteria?

...you mean "God did it" ?? I don't think so.
We don't yet know exactly how life began but we're getting closer...no
thanks, of course, to creationist nonsense.
https://tinyurl.com/hjesvld

It says,

"One day soon someone will fill a container
with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it
under the right conditions, and watch life
emerge." ~ Your above link

Is this what you believe also, John?

You have a lot more 'faith' than I do.

Post by John Locke
Life must have begun with a simple molecule that could reproduce
itself - and now we think we know how to make one
As far back as the 1960s, a few of those intelligent organisms began
to suspect that the first self-replicating molecules were made of RNA,
a close cousin of DNA. This idea has always had a huge problem, though
- there was no known way by which RNA molecules could have formed on
the primordial Earth. And if RNA molecules couldn't form
spontaneously, how could self-replicating RNA molecules arise? Did
some other replicator come first? If so, what was it? The answer is
finally beginning to emerge.
When biologists first started to ponder how life arose, the question
seemed baffling. In all organisms alive today, the hard work is done
by proteins. Proteins can twist and fold into a wild diversity of
shapes, so they can do just about anything, including acting as
enzymes, substances that catalyse a huge range of chemical reactions.
However, the information needed to make proteins is stored in DNA
molecules. You can't make new proteins without DNA, and you can't make
new DNA without proteins. So which came first, proteins or DNA?
The discovery in the 1960s that RNA could fold like a protein, albeit
not into such complex structures, suggested an answer. If RNA could
catalyse reactions as well as storing information, some RNA molecules
might be capable of making more RNA molecules. And if that was the
case, RNA replicators would have had no need for proteins. They could
do everything themselves.

RNA does not exist without DNA.

Post by John Locke
Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

They also say,

"You can't make new proteins without DNA, and
you can't make new DNA without proteins."

Post by John Locke
RNA world easier to make
Ingenious chemistry shows how nucleotides may have formed in the
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
Further Evidence that Life Might Have Started with RNA
https://tinyurl.com/zgl83nm

You cite folks that fantasize a primordial soup
that synthesizes RNA, but their scenario is not
how molecular biology works in the real world.

Also, RNA carries biological genetic information
from DNA for the purpose of protein synthesis.

The sites you reference to don't even address
this vital factor at all.

RNA has no purpose by itself. And in the real
world it also has no existence apart from DNA.

b***@m.nu

2017-03-10 18:16:39 UTC

That is so damn stupid it is not even worth responding to

Andrew

2017-03-11 04:42:58 UTC

That is so damn stupid it is
not even worth responding
to

Yet you did.

Lucifer Morningstar

2017-03-11 05:18:20 UTC

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:42:58 -0800, "Andrew"

That is so damn stupid it is
not even worth responding
to

Yet you did.

Given all the above life does not exist.

--
There are two types of people in this world
Atheists and the mentally ill

Andrew

2017-03-11 11:10:15 UTC

That is so damn stupid it is
not even worth responding
to

Yet you did.

Given all the above life does
not exist.

Not unless.. we have a most
awesome and wonderful
Creator.

Lucifer Morningstar

2017-03-11 11:53:00 UTC

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 03:10:15 -0800, "Andrew"

That is so damn stupid it is
not even worth responding
to

Yet you did.

Given all the above life does
not exist.

Not unless.. we have a most
awesome and wonderful
Creator.

The creator can't exist either.

--
There are two types of people in this world
Atheists and the mentally ill

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2017-03-13 19:17:31 UTC

Post by Andrew
Not unless.. we have a most
awesome and wonderful
Creator.

sycophant

Your alleged creator creates sycophants to run around mindlessly praising it.

ass kissers

not worthy

Gordon

2017-03-25 16:05:10 UTC

Very well stated. I agree entirely, but there is yet a lot that I
don't understand. One question that I have been working on is, why do
humans have little or no body hair, while all other anthropoids have
lots of body hair?

My guess on this is that God regulated and controlled this development
in order to give us reasons for developing and maturing into a more
complex way of existing. Those early homo sapiens beings could not
survive very well, living as apes and monkeys. They needed body hair
or they needed to develop a means for survival that would compensate
for their loss of body hair. Natural selection, as the body hair loss
process matured, led to a lot of innovation and survival of those who
could to this kind of thinking and cooperation. Gordon

Mitchell Holman

2017-03-25 17:16:06 UTC

We have already discussed this. In dry arid climates
body hair is a detriment, it traps body heat that needs
to be dispersed and it is a haven for insects. The same
loss of thick body fur happens when canines are moved
from colder reqions to warmer ones.

Post by Gordon
My guess on this is that God regulated and controlled this development
in order to give us reasons for developing and maturing into a more
complex way of existing. Those early homo sapiens beings could not
survive very well, living as apes and monkeys. They needed body hair
or they needed to develop a means for survival that would compensate
for their loss of body hair. Natural selection, as the body hair loss
process matured, led to a lot of innovation and survival of those who
could to this kind of thinking and cooperation. Gordon

God had nothing to do with it. When a selected
body trait becomes a liability it is lost unless an
alternate utility justifies it.

Gordon

2017-03-25 17:53:28 UTC

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 12:16:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

I know this has been discussed many times but the answers I am looking
for have not been provided. Why did none of the apes or monkeys lose
their hair? Why did none of the dog/wolf family lose their hair? Why
did none of the equine family lose their hair?

Humans moved out of Africa and split into
groups...Denisovians...Neanderthals...Etc.

Some of these drifted up into what is now northern Europe and should
have evolved into very hairy creatures in that cold climate but
instead they lost their hair. Why?

God had nothing to do with it. When a selected
body trait becomes a liability it is lost unless an
alternate utility justifies it.

If this was right, more of the tropical creatures should be hairless.
Many are not. Zebras, Lions & Tigers for example.

Mitchell Holman

2017-03-26 02:17:31 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 12:16:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:54:28 -0800, "Andrew"

I know this has been discussed many times but the answers I am looking
for have not been provided. Why did none of the apes or monkeys lose
their hair?

They stayed in the forest, the hominids
moved into the grassland.

Post by Gordon
Why did none of the dog/wolf family lose their hair?

When they moved into the arid grasslands
they DID lose most of their fur.

Post by Gordon
Humans moved out of Africa and split into
groups...Denisovians...Neanderthals...Etc.
Some of these drifted up into what is now northern Europe and should
have evolved into very hairy creatures in that cold climate but
instead they lost their hair. Why?

Hominids need sunlight on bare skin to
manufacture vitamen D, esp in colder climates.
Hence the caucasian "race" losing the negroid
melanin and becoming white.

My guess on this is that God regulated and controlled this

development

in order to give us reasons for developing and maturing into a more
complex way of existing. Those early homo sapiens beings could not
survive very well, living as apes and monkeys. They needed body hair
or they needed to develop a means for survival that would compensate
for their loss of body hair. Natural selection, as the body hair loss
process matured, led to a lot of innovation and survival of those who
could to this kind of thinking and cooperation. Gordon

God had nothing to do with it. When a selected
body trait becomes a liability it is lost unless an
alternate utility justifies it.

If this was right, more of the tropical creatures should be hairless.
Many are not. Zebras, Lions & Tigers for example.

Animals in the wild need enough fur to block
sunlight but not for insulation. Compare cold weather
pachyderms ("wooly" Mammoths, mastadons) to their
tropical cousins the elephants. Much hair vs very
little hair. Ditto for canines. In northern climates
wolves have much hair, in Africa jackels and the
African Wild Dog have very little hair.

Gordon

2017-03-26 14:48:21 UTC

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 21:17:31 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 12:16:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:54:28 -0800, "Andrew"

I know this has been discussed many times but the answers I am looking
for have not been provided. Why did none of the apes or monkeys lose
their hair?

They stayed in the forest, the hominids
moved into the grassland.

Wouldn't this have also led to hairless camels? And, how about those
humans that never left the jungle?

Post by Gordon
Why did none of the dog/wolf family lose their hair?

When they moved into the arid grasslands
they DID lose most of their fur.

Tell this to the owner of a Collie dog.

Hominids need sunlight on bare skin to
manufacture vitamen D, esp in colder climates.
Hence the caucasian "race" losing the negroid
melanin and becoming white.

I've read that the hands and face, exposed to sunlight, will produce
all the vitamin D we need. Those humans that moved from the tropics up
to what is now northern Europe used animal skins to protect them from
the cold. This would have countered any reason for their loss of hair
to get more sunlight on their skin.

My guess on this is that God regulated and controlled this

development

God had nothing to do with it. When a selected
body trait becomes a liability it is lost unless an
alternate utility justifies it.

If this was right, more of the tropical creatures should be hairless.
Many are not. Zebras, Lions & Tigers for example.

Very true, but none except humans lost most of their hair.

Why do Polar Bears have such thick fur and a black nose if the above
is totally exact?

Alex W.

2017-03-26 03:50:07 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 12:16:06 -0500, Mitchell Holman

It is a misconception that humans have lost their hair. Humans still
have as many hairs on our bodies as one would expect to find on any ape
of similar size. What is different is the thickness: our hair is very
much more fine and less coloured than an ape's.

God had nothing to do with it. When a selected
body trait becomes a liability it is lost unless an
alternate utility justifies it.

If this was right, more of the tropical creatures should be hairless.
Many are not. Zebras, Lions & Tigers for example.

For a start, fur insulates.

Secondly, it is a misconception that tropical climates are endlessly
hot. It does get bloody cold in the night.

unknown

2017-03-25 17:49:43 UTC

Post by Gordon
Very well stated. I agree entirely, but there is yet a lot that I
don't understand. One question that I have been working on is, why do
humans have little or no body hair, while all other anthropoids have
lots of body hair?
My guess on this is that God regulated and controlled this development
in order to give us reasons for developing and maturing into a more
complex way of existing. Those early homo sapiens beings could not
survive very well, living as apes and monkeys. They needed body hair
or they needed to develop a means for survival that would compensate
for their loss of body hair. Natural selection, as the body hair loss
process matured, led to a lot of innovation and survival of those who
could to this kind of thinking and cooperation. Gordon

The LORD obviously took away our hair so we would be
forced to wear clothes. Just like he invented thistles
so we would have to wear shoes.

How would you explain it to your kids if men roamed the
earth with their dangly bits hanging out, and women went
about with their tits flopping around? Why, such blatant
nekkidity would have everyone fucking each other
willy-nilly.

Do you have a god who would approve of that sort of
conduct? That's just not the way God trains us up to be
future Demi-Gods In Charge Of A Planet Of Our Very Own.
If you can't understand that, you need more tribulations
before you are up to the task.

Lucifer Morningstar

2017-03-26 05:03:29 UTC

Post by unknown
<snip silliness>

Isn't that what God wants?

Post by unknown
Do you have a god who would approve of that sort of
conduct? That's just not the way God trains us up to be
future Demi-Gods In Charge Of A Planet Of Our Very Own.
If you can't understand that, you need more tribulations
before you are up to the task.

If everybody has a Planet Of Our Very Own(tm) will all
the planets be devoid of life?
What fun would it be to be in charge of a planet where
you can't play cruel games with the occupants?

--
There are two types of people in this world
Atheists and the mentally ill

Gordon

2017-03-26 15:02:46 UTC

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:03:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by unknown
<snip silliness>

Isn't that what God wants?

Your thinking applies only to humans? If not, why do other animals
make it just fine with their genitals and mamaries fully exposed?

Most of the things like this are what Satan uses to impel us to follow
the ways of sin and rebellion, but we have to go through this process
in order to learn enough about the cumulative effects of sin and
rebellion to make it prudent for God to grant us immortality and
absolute sovereignty.

If everybody has a Planet Of Our Very Own(tm) will all
the planets be devoid of life?
What fun would it be to be in charge of a planet where
you can't play cruel games with the occupants?

How would you advise that these occupants be educated and matured to a
level of understanding of the effects of sin and rebellion? Preprogram
them as puppets. Intimidate them into compliance as slaves? Let them
learn by doing, them promote them to a level of immortality and
absolute sovereignty?

Christopher A. Lee

2017-03-26 15:29:15 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:03:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by unknown
<snip silliness>

Isn't that what God wants?

Your thinking applies only to humans? If not, why do other animals
make it just fine with their genitals and mamaries fully exposed?
Most of the things like this are what Satan

WHAT FUCKING SATAN, imbecile?

You're certifiably insane. That is the only reason to keep obsessively
repeating the same rude, stupid, off-topic, question-begging nonsense
in the atheist newsgroup for so many years.

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-27 04:35:27 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:03:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by unknown
<snip silliness>

Isn't that what God wants?

What's wrong with "sin and rebellion"?

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

Siri Cruise

2017-03-27 06:30:41 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:03:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by unknown
<snip silliness>

Isn't that what God wants?

What's wrong with "sin and rebellion"?

I thought we lost hair and developped attached subcutaneous fat because for a
stint we evolved to aquatic mammals.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-27 06:47:29 UTC

In article

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:03:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by unknown
<snip silliness>

Isn't that what God wants?

What's wrong with "sin and rebellion"?

I thought we lost hair and developped attached subcutaneous fat because for a
stint we evolved to aquatic mammals.

Oooo, to be a dolphin for a day!

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

Siri Cruise

2017-03-27 07:02:27 UTC

Post by Jeanne Douglas
In article

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:03:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by unknown

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:54:28 -0800, "Andrew"

Very well stated. I agree entirely, but there is yet a lot that I
don't understand. One question that I have been working on is, why do
humans have little or no body hair, while all other anthropoids have
lots of body hair?
My guess on this is that God regulated and controlled this development
in order to give us reasons for developing and maturing into a more
complex way of existing. Those early homo sapiens beings could not
survive very well, living as apes and monkeys. They needed body hair
or they needed to develop a means for survival that would compensate
for their loss of body hair. Natural selection, as the body hair loss
process matured, led to a lot of innovation and survival of those who
could to this kind of thinking and cooperation. Gordon

Isn't that what God wants?

What's wrong with "sin and rebellion"?

I thought we lost hair and developped attached subcutaneous fat because for a
stint we evolved to aquatic mammals.

Oooo, to be a dolphin for a day!

Dolphins like humans kill for sport. Their echolocation makes their victims's
body transparent so dolphins can identify vunerable anatomy. They then butt into
the victim until it dies. The victim was never a threat and not consumed after
death. Dolphins just like killing.

A few time dolphins try to rape human women.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-27 09:53:04 UTC

In article

Post by Jeanne Douglas
In article

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:03:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by unknown

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 17:54:28 -0800, "Andrew"

Very well stated. I agree entirely, but there is yet a lot that I
don't understand. One question that I have been working on is,
why
do
humans have little or no body hair, while all other anthropoids
have
lots of body hair?
My guess on this is that God regulated and controlled this
development
in order to give us reasons for developing and maturing into a more
complex way of existing. Those early homo sapiens beings could not
survive very well, living as apes and monkeys. They needed body
hair
or they needed to develop a means for survival that would
compensate
for their loss of body hair. Natural selection, as the body hair
loss
process matured, led to a lot of innovation and survival of those
who
could to this kind of thinking and cooperation. Gordon

Isn't that what God wants?

What's wrong with "sin and rebellion"?

I thought we lost hair and developped attached subcutaneous fat because
for
a
stint we evolved to aquatic mammals.

Oooo, to be a dolphin for a day!

So they're assholes. So what?

Being able to swim through the water like that for a day would be
awesome.

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-27 04:36:07 UTC

Post by Gordon
How would you advise that these occupants be educated and matured to a
level of understanding of the effects of sin and rebellion? Preprogram
them as puppets. Intimidate them into compliance as slaves?

You mean a puppet and a slave like you are?

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

Lucifer Morningstar

2017-03-27 06:43:35 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:03:29 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by unknown
<snip silliness>

Isn't that what God wants?

Your thinking applies only to humans?

When God decided to make us as just another mammal he must
have had in mind for us to behave like other mammals.

Post by Gordon
If not, why do other animals
make it just fine with their genitals and mamaries fully exposed?

Some human tribes as well.

Post by Gordon
Most of the things like this are what Satan uses to impel us to follow
the ways of sin and rebellion, but we have to go through this process
in order to learn enough about the cumulative effects of sin and
rebellion to make it prudent for God to grant us immortality and
absolute sovereignty.

If there was some way this learning phase could have been avoided
should God have done whatever was needed?

If everybody has a Planet Of Our Very Own(tm) will all
the planets be devoid of life?
What fun would it be to be in charge of a planet where
you can't play cruel games with the occupants?

None of the above.
My occupants would be provided with whatever was necessary for them
to all have a good life. Why are you only offering God two choices?
God could not tolerate absolute sovereignty as some would choose
to go the way Satan did. You say our thinking would be aligned with
God's thinking but that is not free choice.

--
There are two types of people in this world
Atheists and the mentally ill

Siri Cruise

2017-03-27 06:58:56 UTC

Post by Lucifer Morningstar
When God decided to make us as just another mammal he must
have had in mind for us to behave like other mammals.

Most mammals only fuck when the female is fertile.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.

uɐɯ ɐɥɔʇıɐpɐʞ

2017-03-27 06:44:40 UTC

Peter Pan, thou hast not so much brain as ear wax. Ye waxy-faced proud

Post by unknown
The LORD obviously took away our hair so we would be
forced to wear clothes. Just like he invented thistles
so we would have to wear shoes.

Pah. Thistles are for pussies. Meet the Australian bindii:

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/edede351c38a941e7478852552995e9f

Loading Image...

pronounced bin-dee-eye

--
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm

Christopher A. Lee

2017-03-25 18:09:13 UTC

Post by Andrew
Scientists know that for life
to get going there must be..
1. a cell that can reproduce itself

But not during the initial transition from non-life to life, which Ann
Drool knows perfectly well, so why does he keep repeating the same old
deliberate lies where they are, in any case, off-topic because it is
nothingto do with atheism?

Post by Andrew
2. DNA
3. RNA
5. genetic information with
specified instructions

Bollocks. DNA is not "specified instructions".

Post by Andrew
6. an host environment that
is conducive for life and
growth

So?

Post by Andrew
All of the above must be
together at the **exact
same** time for there
to be any life.

Liar.

DNA life is derived from RNA life.

And lab experiments have produced protocells which didn't even have
nucleic acids but evolved precursors to RNA over subsequent
generations.

The in-your-face liar knows this because he has been given the work of
researchers every time he has repeated the lie.

He's also a moron who expects modern life to have been spoofed into
existence all at once rather that evolving from the earliest, much
simpler life.

Post by Andrew
So the question is..
What "origins model" fits
all of the above criteria?

He knows perfectly well that the above criteria are bullshit.

Post by Gordon
Very well stated.

Liar.

Post by Gordon
I agree entirely,

Because you are as big a fucking moron as he is.

Post by Gordon
but there is yet a lot that I
don't understand. One question that I have been working on is, why do
humans have little or no body hair, while all other anthropoids have
lots of body hair?

Why do you keep asking what you have had answered over and over again,
deliberately rude, deliberately stupid sociopath?

Post by Gordon
My guess on this is that God

WHAT FUCKING GOD, question-begging moron?

I wonder if the imbecile will even attempt to address the following...

They refuse to acknowledge the work in abiogenesis research which
has demonstrated the formation of simple cells from abiotic proteins,
which metabolise and reproduce - and evolve nucleic acids over
subsequent generations...

The link is to an easy to follow presentation by the late Sidney Fox
on the formation of proto-cells in the lab using simple, natural
processes.

They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

The following is an abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team
concerning their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell

Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu

[me: Note how few of the team doing this ground-breaking work were
American. Most of them were from overseas, doing post graduate and
post-doctoral work in the US. This has been the state of US science
for a long time]

Abstract

Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (sulfobes) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM [my emphasis].

Note. Sidney Fox's work was in the 1950s. Alfonso Herrera's was in the
late 1930s. Both Aleksandr Oparin and J.B.S.Haldane had laid down the
theoretical groundwork in the 1920s.

So none of this is particularly new.

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-26 00:53:39 UTC

Read a science book where that is explained.

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

b***@m.nu

2017-03-26 01:21:23 UTC

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

It makes you wonder how some of these people are still alive.

Christopher A. Lee

2017-03-26 03:45:19 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution.

A bit of an exaggeration. Evolution is only "controversial" in the
minds of American fundamentalists and people in Islamic hell-holes.

World wide, most Christians accept it.
it

Post by b***@m.nu
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"
It makes you wonder how some of these people are still alive.

More than 40% of Americans are that stupid - and look what happens
when they vote.

Gordon

2017-03-26 14:40:37 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

Most theists accept evolution but do not think it was or is just a
random process with no intelligence involved. Human intelligence can
control the evolution of domestic animals, leading to different
breeds, but we have not yet been able to create a new species or start
with chemicals and combine them into a new life form.

Post by b***@m.nu
It makes you wonder how some of these people are still alive.

Please explain why only one species came through this evolutionary
process that lead to the loss of body coverage with thick fluffy hair?
If this was beneficial to homo sapiens sapiens, why was it not
beneficial to some of the apes?

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-26 14:59:32 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution? Gawd, you're stupid.

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

Christopher A. Lee

2017-03-26 15:41:02 UTC

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 07:59:32 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

Most theists accept evolution but do not think it was or is just a
random process

Good thing that's just the trolling moron's deliberate straw man.

For the umpteenth time, while the genetic mutations are random, the
fact that some of them confer a reproductive advantage up to and
including survival to reproduce while others a reproductive
disadvantage up to and including fatality, means they are filtered by
natural selection - making the result anything but random.

It's what survives, either immediately or in the long term.

Which the in-your-face, proven serial liar knows, because it has been
explained over and over again..

Post by Gordon
with no intelligence involved. Human intelligence can
control the evolution of domestic animals, leading to different
breeds, but we have not yet been able to create a new species or start
with chemicals and combine them into a new life form.

The proven serial liar has been given examples from abiogenesis
research, over and over again.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
What the fuck does that have to do with evolution? Gawd, you're stupid.

And deliberately so.

Here's an example from abiogenesis research, which the thoroughly
dishonest, proven serial liar has been given over and over again, but
never once acknowledged let alone addressed...

The link is to an easy to follow presentation by the late Sidney Fox
on the formation of proto-cells in the lab using simple, natural
processes.

They metabolise, reproduce, self-organise and respond to
environmental stimuli. In other words, they satisfy the textbook
criteria for life.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

The following is an abstract for a paper authored by Fox and his team
concerning their subsequent research into these proto-cells, with my
capitalising for emphasis...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00700418

Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell

Sidney W. Fox, Peter R. Bahn, Klaus Dose, Kaoru Harada, Laura Hsu,
Yoshio Ishima, John Jungck, Jean Kendrick, Gottfried Krampitz,
James C. Lacey Jr., Koichiro Matsuno, Paul Melius, Mavis
Middlebrook, Tadayoshi Nakashima, Aristotel Pappelis,Alexander Pol,
Duane L. Rohlfing, Allen Vegotsky, Thomas V. Waehneldt, H. Wax, Bi
Yu

[me: Note how few of the team doing this ground-breaking work were
American. Most of them were from overseas, doing post graduate and
post-doctoral work in the US. This has been the state of US science
for a long time]

Abstract

Although Oparin used coacervate droplets from two or more types of
polymer to model the first cell, he hypothesized homacervation from
protein, consistent with Pasteur and Darwin. Herrera made two amino
acids and numerous cell-like structures (sulfobes) in the
laboratory, which probably arose from intermediate polymers. Our
experiments have conformed with a homoacervation of thermal
proteinoid, in which amino acid sequences are determined by the
reacting amino acids themselves. All proteinoids that have been
tested assemble themselves alone in water to protocells. The
protocells have characteristics of life defined by Webster's
Dictionary: metabolism, growth, reproduction and response to stimuli
in the environment. THE PROTOCELLS ARE ABLE ALSO TO EVOLVE TO MORE
MODERN CELLS INCLUDING THE INITIATION OF A NUCLEIC ACID CODING
SYSTEM [my emphasis].

Note. Sidney Fox's work was in the 1950s. Alfonso Herrera's was in the
late 1930s. Both Aleksandr Oparin and J.B.S.Haldane had laid down the
theoretical groundwork in the 1920s.

So none of this is particularly new.

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2017-03-26 16:08:29 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution? Gawd, you're stupid.

Oh use your brain, you argumentative moron. He's saying we have never
observed evolution and new breeds of same species is not evolution. I add
that although we know that evolution (new species) has occurred we do not
yet know exactly how.

b***@m.nu

2017-03-26 16:51:55 UTC

Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:08:29 -0700, "!! Atheist

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution? Gawd, you're stupid.

No you do not know how, because you are a liar and a moron.

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2017-03-26 17:11:09 UTC

Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:08:29 -0700, "!! Atheist

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution? Gawd, you're stupid.

No you do not know how, because you are a liar and a moron.

Wow, looks like you want my attention. Ok, what do you think I've lied about:
1. we have never observed evolution
2. new breeds of same species is not evolution
3. we know that evolution (new species) has occurred
4. we do not yet know exactly how
5. "Jeanne" is an argumentative moron

Just pick one for now, starting at top.

b***@m.nu

2017-03-26 20:44:17 UTC

Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 10:11:09 -0700, "!! Atheist

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:08:29 -0700, "!! Atheist

Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution? Gawd, you're stupid.

No you do not know how, because you are a liar and a moron.

1. we have never observed evolution
2. new breeds of same species is not evolution
3. we know that evolution (new species) has occurred
4. we do not yet know exactly how
5. "Jeanne" is an argumentative moron
Just pick one for now, starting at top.

ok first there is your name. You are NOT an atheist. You fucking liar

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2017-03-27 18:20:09 UTC

Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 10:11:09 -0700, "!! Atheist

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 09:08:29 -0700, "!! Atheist

Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution? Gawd, you're stupid.

No you do not know how, because you are a liar and a moron.

ok first there is your name. You are NOT an atheist. You fucking liar

yawn Is that the best you can do? whatever

b***@m.nu

2017-03-26 16:49:47 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

Most theists accept evolution but do not think it was or is just a

not true, what you meant to say was most dumb ass catholics. but it is
funny how you say most theists now accept, because not long ago no
theists accepted it. soon you will accept the fact that jesus never
existed then later that a god does not exist.

Post by Gordon
random process with no intelligence involved. Human intelligence can
control the evolution of domestic animals, leading to different
breeds, but we have not yet been able to create a new species or start
with chemicals and combine them into a new life form.

yeah and?

Post by b***@m.nu
It makes you wonder how some of these people are still alive.

Use your fucking braid moron, what are the differences between humans
and apes. Dude learn something, but first learn how to use your damn
brain for something other than "god did it". I mean how lame are you
that you can not use simple <very simple> logic to figure things out
for yourself?

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-27 04:39:11 UTC

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 17:53:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Read a science book where that is explained.

Easily explained. but most theists just cant understand evolution. it
is not in their vocabulary. to deny obvious things like excess body
hair is just too easily explained by using "god did it"

Most theists accept evolution but do not think it was or is just a

yeah and?

Post by b***@m.nu
It makes you wonder how some of these people are still alive.

It's easier for him to be a puppet and a slave and spew the nonsense
he's been brainwashed with.

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

unknown

2017-03-28 18:35:05 UTC

Post by Gordon
Human intelligence can
control the evolution of domestic animals, leading to different
breeds, but we have not yet been able to create a new species

Canis familiaris.

Oops!

Post by Gordon
or start
with chemicals and combine them into a new life form.

Sydney Fox (as you've been reminded many multiple times).

Oops!

Christopher A. Lee

2017-03-28 19:38:35 UTC

Post by unknown

Post by Gordon
Human intelligence can
control the evolution of domestic animals, leading to different
breeds, but we have not yet been able to create a new species

Canis familiaris.
Oops!

Post by Gordon
or start
with chemicals and combine them into a new life form.

Sydney Fox (as you've been reminded many multiple times).

These morons have to ignore it. If it's not deliberate, then cognitive
dissonance makes it vanish as if it had never been provided.

Post by unknown
Oops!

Fox was "just" a pioneer. In the more than half a century since his
ground-breaking work, others have gone much further.

I just use Fox because of this link which is both easy to follow and
has pretty pictures, being based on a presentation he made for an
intelligent lay audience at the Vatican of all places - but then the
RCC hasn't been literalist for a long time.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Lucifer Morningstar

2017-03-26 04:59:37 UTC

I'm wondering why God numbers the hairs on our head as in
Matthew 10:30. Are the hairs numbered once at some time in our
life or are they renumbered as hairs fall out and new ones appear?
Does God renumber from 1 or are new hairs numbered ever upwards?
Why only the hairs on our head? Why not chest and genital hairs?

Surely they had God's protection.

Post by Gordon
They needed body hair
or they needed to develop a means for survival that would compensate
for their loss of body hair. Natural selection, as the body hair loss
process matured, led to a lot of innovation and survival of those who
could to this kind of thinking and cooperation. Gordon

God appears to have done some really stupid things.
Its almost as if there is no God.

--
There are two types of people in this world
Atheists and the mentally ill

Gordon

2017-03-26 14:55:05 UTC

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:59:37 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

This is just a figure of speech that tells us that God knows
everything that can be known, even the number of hairs on our head.

Surely they had God's protection.

Not entirely. Remember that God allowed Lucifer/Satan and the fallen
angels to explore the realm of sin and rebellion and in the process
provide a learning means for us humans.

God appears to have done some really stupid things.
Its almost as if there is no God.

No, it appears that we do not and cannot fully understand all of God's
plan and how He is carrying it out.

Christopher A. Lee

2017-03-26 15:43:17 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:59:37 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

This is just a figure of speech that tells us that God

WHAT FUCKING GOD, in the real world beyond your religious mythology,
deliberately rude, deliberately stupid moron who knows that atheists
aren't even closet Christians?

b***@m.nu

2017-03-26 16:54:27 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:59:37 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

This is just a figure of speech that tells us that God knows
everything that can be known, even the number of hairs on our head.

Surely they had God's protection.

Not entirely. Remember that God allowed Lucifer/Satan and the fallen
angels to explore the realm of sin and rebellion and in the process
provide a learning means for us humans.

God appears to have done some really stupid things.
Its almost as if there is no God.

No, it appears that we do not and cannot fully understand all of God's
plan and how He is carrying it out.

what are you dude like 9 years old? you have the mind of a child? I
apologize if there is a mental deficit there, oh wait there is a
mental problem, you are a theist. Oh, then I take back my apology.

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-27 04:37:05 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:59:37 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Surely they had God's protection.

Not entirely. Remember that God allowed Lucifer/Satan and the fallen
angels to explore the realm of sin and rebellion and in the process
provide a learning means for us humans.

In other words, your god abandoned humanity to the worst horrors
imaginable. What a monster.

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

Siri Cruise

2017-03-27 06:28:19 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:59:37 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Surely they had God's protection.

Not entirely. Remember that God allowed Lucifer/Satan and the fallen
angels to explore the realm of sin and rebellion and in the process
provide a learning means for us humans.

In other words, your god abandoned humanity to the worst horrors
imaginable. What a monster.

To jews and most christians that is heresy, and humanity has never been
abandonned. You can argue over whether a god would give humans the freedom to
create their own hell, but very few christians believe their god forsakes
humans. I don't know the details, but I've heard a little of, I think,
Pentecostals believe we have been dropped in the middle of a spiritual war.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.

Jeanne Douglas

2017-03-27 06:46:54 UTC

In article

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:59:37 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Surely they had God's protection.

Not entirely. Remember that God allowed Lucifer/Satan and the fallen
angels to explore the realm of sin and rebellion and in the process
provide a learning means for us humans.

In other words, your god abandoned humanity to the worst horrors
imaginable. What a monster.

And if a parent dropped a child into the middle of an ongoing war, we'd
consider that good loving parenting?

--
JD

"May your winter feast be an orgy of delight"
-- The Big Furry, Late Show with Stephen
Colbert

God

2017-03-27 07:49:04 UTC

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 01:46:55 -0500, in

Post by Jeanne Douglas
In article

Post by Siri Cruise
humans. I don't know the details, but I've heard a little of, I think,
Pentecostals believe we have been dropped in the middle of a spiritual war.

And if a parent dropped a child into the middle of an ongoing war, we'd
consider that good loving parenting?

Probably not, and the Pentecostals have it all wrong.

--
I Am therefore you Are.

Christopher A. Lee

2017-03-27 11:49:45 UTC

On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:37:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:59:37 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Surely they had God's protection.

Not entirely. Remember that God allowed Lucifer/Satan and the fallen
angels to explore the realm of sin and rebellion and in the process
provide a learning means for us humans.

In other words, your god abandoned humanity to the worst horrors
imaginable. What a monster.

He's insane. He keeps telling us to remember nonsense as if it were
fact, instead of establishing it as such.

Even though the question-begging nature of his neverending,
unsolicited bullshit is pointed out every time,

Lucifer Morningstar

2017-03-27 06:46:51 UTC

Post by Gordon
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:59:37 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar

This is just a figure of speech that tells us that God knows
everything that can be known, even the number of hairs on our head.

Could it be that all references to God are figures of speech?

Surely they had God's protection.

Not entirely. Remember that God allowed Lucifer/Satan and the fallen
angels to explore the realm of sin and rebellion and in the process
provide a learning means for us humans.

I can't see how that relates to God being good.

God appears to have done some really stupid things.
Its almost as if there is no God.

No, it appears that we do not and cannot fully understand all of God's
plan and how He is carrying it out.

Again I can't see how that related to God being good.

--
There are two types of people in this world
Atheists and the mentally ill

Ron Dean

2022-11-30 17:17:34 UTC

The usual answer is the RNA world.

Andrew

2022-12-01 13:40:23 UTC

The usual answer is the RNA world.

The RNA world hypothesis is in fact...
*a baseless unscientific fantasy* <----

It is a "world" inhabited by fools
who endorse fantasy in the place
of real science.

"The Origin of Life community has
largely *rejected* the RNA world
hypothesis."

"Biochemist Pier Luigi Luisi recently
describing it to me as a baseless fantasy."
http://www.suzanmazur.com/?p=220

In the real world, RNA comes only
from DNA which itself comes only
from preexisting DNA.

A lone RNA molecule would have
no function or purpose apart from
the code that it received from DNA.

Ron Dean

2022-12-05 04:54:56 UTC

The usual answer is the RNA world.

The RNA world hypothesis is in fact...
*a baseless unscientific fantasy* <----> It is a "world" inhabited by fools
who endorse fantasy in the place
of real science.
"The Origin of Life community has
largely *rejected* the RNA world
hypothesis."
"Biochemist Pier Luigi Luisi recently
describing it to me as a baseless fantasy."
http://www.suzanmazur.com/?p=220
In the real world, RNA comes only
from DNA which itself comes only
from preexisting DNA.
A lone RNA molecule would have
no function or purpose apart from
the code that it received from DNA.

Yes! I absolutely agree. I've pointed this out to you before.
Life is observed, real and documented fact, however, its
origin Is unobserved, unknown undoccumented and
unresolved. So, naturalist have no option, but to seek
explanations, hypothesis, theories and offer excuses for
the absence of direct empirical evidence. Their only option
is to try to resolve the origin of life by natural means.
And this observation Vs unobservation is a predominant
characteristic abiogeneses and evolution itself.

A prime example is the Cambrian explosion where numerous
complex animals are found, observed in the strata. By
contrast intermediate or transitional fossils to earlier life
forms are unobserved and undocumented thus one find
many excuses from Darwin to present day Darwinians.
.
It occurs to me that what is found, observed and documented
best fits a creation model which implies a creator. The unobserved,
undocumented and unknown is the leading characteristic of both
abiogenesis and evolution. Without excuses, hypotheses and
theories there is little else supporting abiogenesis and evolution.

What about claimed transitional fossils? Science is supposed to
be neutral and unbiased and go wherever the evidence leads.
Does abiogenesis or evolution seek after truth and reality or
is Darwin's hopes and expectations setting a paradigm in which
from the beginning there is the conviction regarding the truth of
evolution and the primary objective then is to find evidence in
support of theory. So, when fossils are presented by authorities
as evidence of immediate, how is one to know that these
findings are not just the "best in the Field"?

Andrew

2022-12-05 11:14:41 UTC

The usual answer is the RNA world.

Yes! I absolutely agree. I've pointed this out to you before.
Life is observed, real and documented fact, however, its
origin Is unobserved, unknown undoccumented and
unresolved. So, naturalist have no option, but to seek
explanations, hypothesis, theories and offer excuses for
the absence of direct empirical evidence. Their only option
is to try to resolve the origin of life by natural means.
And this observation Vs unobservation is a predominant
characteristic abiogeneses and evolution itself.
A prime example is the Cambrian explosion where numerous
complex animals are found, observed in the strata. By
contrast intermediate or transitional fossils to earlier life
forms are unobserved and undocumented thus one find
many excuses from Darwin to present day Darwinians.
.
It occurs to me that what is found, observed and documented
best fits a creation model which implies a creator. The unobserved,
undocumented and unknown is the leading characteristic of both
abiogenesis and evolution. Without excuses, hypotheses and
theories there is little else supporting abiogenesis and evolution.
What about claimed transitional fossils? Science is supposed to
be neutral and unbiased and go wherever the evidence leads.
Does abiogenesis or evolution seek after truth and reality or
is Darwin's hopes and expectations setting a paradigm in which
from the beginning there is the conviction regarding the truth of
evolution and the primary objective then is to find evidence in
support of theory. So, when fossils are presented by authorities
as evidence of immediate, how is one to know that these
findings are not just the "best in the Field"?

In general, students are programmed to accept what
is told to them. Only the more astute who desire the
truth will have the courage to break free and find it.

z***@windstream.net

2022-12-03 17:17:07 UTC

Good sunrise,

Post by Andrew
Scientists know that for life
to get going there must be..
1. a cell that can reproduce itself

A 'simple' cell is not so simple. Down at its level, it is a giant
factory with goings and comings, etc.

Post by Andrew
2. DNA

A complex serious of nucleotides.

Post by Andrew
3. RNA

A substance that scientists are still learning about its functions.

WHERE'S #4?

Post by Andrew
5. genetic information with
specified instructions

A biological computer code that mindless random chance allegedly threw
together. Nor just once BUT FOR EACH AND EVERY SPECIES!

Post by Andrew
6. an host environment that
is conducive for life and
growth

Life can exist in many environments, even what we consider close to
deadly, like in the case of extremeophiles.