Positive Unequivocal Evidence

Post by Andrew
Information in DNA is empirical *proof* of design.
Information is an immaterial entity which cannot be
created by molecules. The information that defines
life forms existed first and then DNA which carries
that information was created afterward.
DNA has information that is stored and retrieved for
a functional, observable purpose. This complies with
linguistics law. These immaterial properties *cannot*
be produced by that which is material only. Glory to
God.
It is absolutely impossible for 'nature by itself' to be
the creator of DNA. Science here has thus shown us
that life is "unquestionably and unequivocally" the
product of an intelligent and supernatural causation.
This is clear, positive and unequivocal evidence for
anyone who is honest, and who wants to know the
truth. We have a most awesome Creator ---> God.
You may prepare now to meet Him in peace.

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how nature can and does make
precursors to RNA and the proteins of life.

Jeanne Douglas

2016-09-24 10:04:22 UTC

Let's see your evidence for that statement.

--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.

Malte Runz

2016-09-24 13:39:14 UTC

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:04:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Let's see your evidence for that statement.

His evidence is this:

"There is no Darwinian pathway for the origin of
the genetic information that is in DNA which is
vital for all living things."

The evidence for that is the fact that it is absolutely impossible for
'nature by itself' to be the creator of DNA.

--
Malte Runz

Andrew

2016-09-24 13:55:38 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to --->an intelligent causation --->Creation.

default

2016-09-24 14:36:06 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

Read it yourself:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Still wrong read it again:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to --->an intelligent causation --->Creation.

Andrew

2016-09-24 21:58:34 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.

Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

You did it again! Lol!

But notice. . .

He says, "others have long suggested that one
of the key early events in this process was the
formation of RNA, a long chainlike molecule
that conveys genetic information."

But you see, information is an immaterial
entity which can not created by chemistry
alone.

The same as that, information in a book can
not be created by paper and ink itself, right?

Exactly.

Furthermore, real world scientists know that
RNA is synthesized**only**in cells that are
-already- alive. That is a known fact in the
science of molecular biology.

"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

The RNA world is a pseudo-science fiction
world that is fantasized by those who refuse
to see what is obvious, for the reason that it
conflicts with their a priori ''no-Creator''
worldview.

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.

But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

nature bats last

2016-09-24 22:52:35 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

.> "The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
.> than a popular fantasy."
.> ~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

Post by Andrew
The RNA world is a pseudo-science fiction
world that is fantasized by those who refuse
to see what is obvious, for the reason that it
conflicts with their a priori ''no-Creator''
worldview.

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

.> The evidence is in for those who honestly.
.> want to know the truth.

Someone who honestly wanted to know the truth would
not have conveniently "forgotten" all about this after
once having been informed about it:

http://bit.ly/2cBPwoe

Seth

Post by Andrew
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

default

2016-09-25 11:32:33 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.

Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your information
from religious nutters that know less about it than you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...

Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living chemicals is
about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire State building and
having it land on top of another penny you put at street level. You
toss a penny off the observation deck every day.

What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable betting
your life it would never happen in your lifetime.

Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor of it
happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the different
breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form with the chemicals
and energy present (ultraviolet light, thermal and geothermal,
electrical, etc.) working hit or miss, to form chemical compounds.

And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on the
street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The statistical
probability just went from zero to indubitable.

Post by Andrew
The same as that, information in a book can
not be created by paper and ink itself, right?
Exactly.
Furthermore, real world scientists know that
RNA is synthesized**only**in cells that are
-already- alive. That is a known fact in the
science of molecular biology.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.
The chemicals necessary are all around, and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...
Dr Charles is singing a different tune today:

Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply puzzling
because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural or mechanistic
homologies. We have developed strong evidence that the enzymatic
activities of Urzymes derived from Class I TrpRS and Class II HisRS
are authentic. The explicit location of the original catalytic
fragments and their experimental activities together validate
predictions derived from the hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno
that the two classes were originally encoded by opposite strands of
the same gene. The possibility that the earliest genes actually coded
for two different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the understanding
of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we continue to seek
additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno hypothesis

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving faster
than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from religious nutter
sites is not the answer.

I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I can't stay
current with anything but a small fraction of what is happening. I've
got bookcases filled with data on ICs (easily 500 cubic feet of books
literally tons of books) and most of it is obsolete. In fact new data
sheets predict the life span and obsolescence of parts even before the
parts hit the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Jeanne Douglas

2016-09-25 13:08:07 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-o
rigins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your information
from religious nutters that know less about it than you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-o
rigins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living chemicals is
about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire State building and
having it land on top of another penny you put at street level. You
toss a penny off the observation deck every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable betting
your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor of it
happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the different
breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form with the chemicals
and energy present (ultraviolet light, thermal and geothermal,
electrical, etc.) working hit or miss, to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on the
street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The statistical
probability just went from zero to indubitable.

Deep time is such a hard concept to wrap our understanding around.
There's another difference between atheists and religious nutters--we
know we really can't "feel" the time, but in our heads we know it's
vast. But the nutters are like the tribes whose only numbers were one,
two, three, many; they just can't grasp the idea at all, not even
intellectually. More tragedy for them.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.
The chemicals necessary are all around, and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...

I remember once when I challenged Jason on a quote mine and demanded
that he use the entire quote, his response was "he said it", meaning
that even if the words are embedded in a context that completely negates
the quote mine, he still "said it".

That's why, most of the time, I try to be careful of my wording.

Post by default
Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply puzzling
because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural or mechanistic
homologies. We have developed strong evidence that the enzymatic
activities of Urzymes derived from Class I TrpRS and Class II HisRS
are authentic. The explicit location of the original catalytic
fragments and their experimental activities together validate
predictions derived from the hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno
that the two classes were originally encoded by opposite strands of
the same gene. The possibility that the earliest genes actually coded
for two different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the understanding
of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we continue to seek
additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno hypothesis

Then why do so many "god" worshippers (like most of them) know the
science is real? Why would they participate in such an elaborate hoax?

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

What a disgusting display of passive aggression. You fool no one with
your phone "nice" act.

Post by default
You need to stay current with science, your target is moving faster
than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from religious nutter
sites is not the answer.

But nothing ever changes in their worlds. And isn't supposed to.

Post by default
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I can't stay
current with anything but a small fraction of what is happening. I've
got bookcases filled with data on ICs (easily 500 cubic feet of books
literally tons of books) and most of it is obsolete. In fact new data
sheets predict the life span and obsolescence of parts even before the
parts hit the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.

Wexford Eire

2016-09-25 13:45:30 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your information
from religious nutters that know less about it than you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living chemicals is
about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire State building and
having it land on top of another penny you put at street level. You
toss a penny off the observation deck every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable betting
your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor of it
happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the different
breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form with the chemicals
and energy present (ultraviolet light, thermal and geothermal,
electrical, etc.) working hit or miss, to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on the
street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The statistical
probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.
The chemicals necessary are all around, and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...
Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply puzzling
because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural or mechanistic
homologies. We have developed strong evidence that the enzymatic
activities of Urzymes derived from Class I TrpRS and Class II HisRS
are authentic. The explicit location of the original catalytic
fragments and their experimental activities together validate
predictions derived from the hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno
that the two classes were originally encoded by opposite strands of
the same gene. The possibility that the earliest genes actually coded
for two different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the understanding
of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we continue to seek
additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno hypothesis

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving faster
than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from religious nutter
sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I can't stay
current with anything but a small fraction of what is happening. I've
got bookcases filled with data on ICs (easily 500 cubic feet of books
literally tons of books) and most of it is obsolete. In fact new data
sheets predict the life span and obsolescence of parts even before the
parts hit the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Andrew

2016-09-25 15:48:25 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your information
from religious nutters that know less about it than you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living chemicals is
about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire State building and
having it land on top of another penny you put at street level. You
toss a penny off the observation deck every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable betting
your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor of it
happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the different
breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form with the chemicals
and energy present (ultraviolet light, thermal and geothermal,
electrical, etc.) working hit or miss, to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on the
street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The statistical
probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.
The chemicals necessary are all around, and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving faster
than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from religious nutter
sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I can't stay
current with anything but a small fraction of what is happening. I've
got bookcases filled with data on ICs (easily 500 cubic feet of books
literally tons of books) and most of it is obsolete. In fact new data
sheets predict the life span and obsolescence of parts even before the
parts hit the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

Wexford Eire

2016-09-25 16:20:32 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your information
from religious nutters that know less about it than you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living chemicals is
about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire State building and
having it land on top of another penny you put at street level. You
toss a penny off the observation deck every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable betting
your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor of it
happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the different
breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form with the chemicals
and energy present (ultraviolet light, thermal and geothermal,
electrical, etc.) working hit or miss, to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on the
street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The statistical
probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.
The chemicals necessary are all around, and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving faster
than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from religious nutter
sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I can't stay
current with anything but a small fraction of what is happening. I've
got bookcases filled with data on ICs (easily 500 cubic feet of books
literally tons of books) and most of it is obsolete. In fact new data
sheets predict the life span and obsolescence of parts even before the
parts hit the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

Wexford Eire

2016-09-25 18:03:33 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your information
from religious nutters that know less about it than you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living chemicals is
about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire State building and
having it land on top of another penny you put at street level. You
toss a penny off the observation deck every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable betting
your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor of it
happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the different
breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form with the chemicals
and energy present (ultraviolet light, thermal and geothermal,
electrical, etc.) working hit or miss, to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on the
street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The statistical
probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.
The chemicals necessary are all around, and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving faster
than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from religious nutter
sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I can't stay
current with anything but a small fraction of what is happening. I've
got bookcases filled with data on ICs (easily 500 cubic feet of books
literally tons of books) and most of it is obsolete. In fact new data
sheets predict the life span and obsolescence of parts even before the
parts hit the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron."

Andrew

2016-09-26 00:04:12 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your information
from religious nutters that know less about it than you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living chemicals is
about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire State building and
having it land on top of another penny you put at street level. You
toss a penny off the observation deck every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable betting
your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor of it
happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the different
breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form with the chemicals
and energy present (ultraviolet light, thermal and geothermal,
electrical, etc.) working hit or miss, to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on the
street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The statistical
probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.
The chemicals necessary are all around, and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving faster
than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from religious nutter
sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I can't stay
current with anything but a small fraction of what is happening. I've
got bookcases filled with data on ICs (easily 500 cubic feet of books
literally tons of books) and most of it is obsolete. In fact new data
sheets predict the life span and obsolescence of parts even before the
parts hit the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron."

That doesn't explain why you love fantasy, and why you are so
easily deceived.

Aren't you the one who said, "Thanks for the link. Great article."?

Yes, it was you. Therefore you testify that you are into fantasy.

Mitchell Holman

2016-09-26 01:54:40 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve
around fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty
good job of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your
information from religious nutters that know less about it than
you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful
statistical probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living
chemicals is about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire
State building and having it land on top of another penny you
put at street level. You toss a penny off the observation deck
every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable
betting your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor
of it happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the
different breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form
with the chemicals and energy present (ultraviolet light,
thermal and geothermal, electrical, etc.) working hit or miss,
to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on
the street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The
statistical probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily
in labs. The chemicals necessary are all around, and the
splicing a matter of miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...
Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply
puzzling because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural
or mechanistic homologies. We have developed strong evidence
that the enzymatic activities of Urzymes derived from Class I
TrpRS and Class II HisRS are authentic. The explicit location
of the original catalytic fragments and their experimental
activities together validate predictions derived from the
hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno that the two classes were
originally encoded by opposite strands of the same gene. The
possibility that the earliest genes actually coded for two
different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the
understanding of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we
continue to seek additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno
hypothesis

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving
faster than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from
religious nutter sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I
can't stay current with anything but a small fraction of what
is happening. I've got bookcases filled with data on ICs
(easily 500 cubic feet of books literally tons of books) and
most of it is obsolete. In fact new data sheets predict the
life span and obsolescence of parts even before the parts hit
the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you
incorrigible moron."

That doesn't explain why you love fantasy, and why you are so
easily deceived.

Nor have you explained your claim that Noah's
ark has been found.

Andrew

2016-09-26 04:09:10 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve
around fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty
good job of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your
information from religious nutters that know less about it than
you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful
statistical probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living
chemicals is about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire
State building and having it land on top of another penny you
put at street level. You toss a penny off the observation deck
every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable
betting your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor
of it happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the
different breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form
with the chemicals and energy present (ultraviolet light,
thermal and geothermal, electrical, etc.) working hit or miss,
to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on
the street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The
statistical probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily
in labs. The chemicals necessary are all around, and the
splicing a matter of miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...
Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply
puzzling because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural
or mechanistic homologies. We have developed strong evidence
that the enzymatic activities of Urzymes derived from Class I
TrpRS and Class II HisRS are authentic. The explicit location
of the original catalytic fragments and their experimental
activities together validate predictions derived from the
hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno that the two classes were
originally encoded by opposite strands of the same gene. The
possibility that the earliest genes actually coded for two
different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the
understanding of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we
continue to seek additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno
hypothesis

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving
faster than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from
religious nutter sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I
can't stay current with anything but a small fraction of what
is happening. I've got bookcases filled with data on ICs
(easily 500 cubic feet of books literally tons of books) and
most of it is obsolete. In fact new data sheets predict the
life span and obsolescence of parts even before the parts hit
the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you
incorrigible moron."

That doesn't explain why you love fantasy, and why you are so
easily deceived.

Nor have you explained your claim that Noah's
ark has been found.

My claim was that the great Deluge did occur and that
explains the multi-trillions of fossils that we find world-
wide. That are evidence of plants and animals that were
quickly buried under super extreme global catastrophic
conditions. That is what the evidence shows. It actually
happened.

So whether or not the Ark is found, there is plenty of
evidence that the event was real.

nature bats last

2016-09-26 04:22:22 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve
around fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty
good job of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your
information from religious nutters that know less about it than
you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful
statistical probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living
chemicals is about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire
State building and having it land on top of another penny you
put at street level. You toss a penny off the observation deck
every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable
betting your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor
of it happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the
different breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form
with the chemicals and energy present (ultraviolet light,
thermal and geothermal, electrical, etc.) working hit or miss,
to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on
the street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The
statistical probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily
in labs. The chemicals necessary are all around, and the
splicing a matter of miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...
Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply
puzzling because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural
or mechanistic homologies. We have developed strong evidence
that the enzymatic activities of Urzymes derived from Class I
TrpRS and Class II HisRS are authentic. The explicit location
of the original catalytic fragments and their experimental
activities together validate predictions derived from the
hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno that the two classes were
originally encoded by opposite strands of the same gene. The
possibility that the earliest genes actually coded for two
different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the
understanding of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we
continue to seek additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno
hypothesis

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving
faster than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from
religious nutter sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I
can't stay current with anything but a small fraction of what
is happening. I've got bookcases filled with data on ICs
(easily 500 cubic feet of books literally tons of books) and
most of it is obsolete. In fact new data sheets predict the
life span and obsolescence of parts even before the parts hit
the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you
incorrigible moron."

That doesn't explain why you love fantasy, and why you are so
easily deceived.

Nor have you explained your claim that Noah's
ark has been found.

,> So whether or not the Ark is found, there is plenty of
,> evidence that the event was real.

Oddest thing about that: only a vanishingly small
percent of the people actually knowledgable
about the evidence -- the geologists, the stratigraphers,
the paleontologists -- agree with you.

And it's not like they reject global catastrophes
prima facie ... five global mass extinction events,
one or more global snowball Earth periods ...
nope, they could accept a global flood without
batting an eye. Except for the fact that there's
zero evidence for one.

Seth

Andrew

2016-09-26 05:27:44 UTC

Post by nature bats last

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve
around fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty
good job of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your
information from religious nutters that know less about it than
you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful
statistical probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living
chemicals is about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire
State building and having it land on top of another penny you
put at street level. You toss a penny off the observation deck
every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable
betting your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor
of it happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the
different breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form
with the chemicals and energy present (ultraviolet light,
thermal and geothermal, electrical, etc.) working hit or miss,
to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on
the street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The
statistical probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily
in labs. The chemicals necessary are all around, and the
splicing a matter of miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...
Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply
puzzling because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural
or mechanistic homologies. We have developed strong evidence
that the enzymatic activities of Urzymes derived from Class I
TrpRS and Class II HisRS are authentic. The explicit location
of the original catalytic fragments and their experimental
activities together validate predictions derived from the
hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno that the two classes were
originally encoded by opposite strands of the same gene. The
possibility that the earliest genes actually coded for two
different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the
understanding of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we
continue to seek additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno
hypothesis

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving
faster than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from
religious nutter sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I
can't stay current with anything but a small fraction of what
is happening. I've got bookcases filled with data on ICs
(easily 500 cubic feet of books literally tons of books) and
most of it is obsolete. In fact new data sheets predict the
life span and obsolescence of parts even before the parts hit
the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you
incorrigible moron."

That doesn't explain why you love fantasy, and why you are so
easily deceived.

Nor have you explained your claim that Noah's
ark has been found.

So some of them -do- agree with the above.

Thanks.

Many times it turns out that the minority are
the ones who were correct.

Post by nature bats last
And it's not like they reject global catastrophes
prima facie ...

So they -do- acknowledge global catastrophes.

Why? Evidence, that's why.

Thanks again!

Post by nature bats last
five global mass extinction events,
one or more global snowball Earth periods ...
nope, they could accept a global flood without
batting an eye. Except for the fact that there's
zero evidence for one.
Seth

nature bats last

2016-09-26 05:44:05 UTC

Post by nature bats last

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve
around fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty
good job of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your
information from religious nutters that know less about it than
you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful
statistical probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living
chemicals is about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire
State building and having it land on top of another penny you
put at street level. You toss a penny off the observation deck
every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable
betting your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor
of it happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the
different breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form
with the chemicals and energy present (ultraviolet light,
thermal and geothermal, electrical, etc.) working hit or miss,
to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on
the street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The
statistical probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily
in labs. The chemicals necessary are all around, and the
splicing a matter of miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...
Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply
puzzling because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural
or mechanistic homologies. We have developed strong evidence
that the enzymatic activities of Urzymes derived from Class I
TrpRS and Class II HisRS are authentic. The explicit location
of the original catalytic fragments and their experimental
activities together validate predictions derived from the
hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno that the two classes were
originally encoded by opposite strands of the same gene. The
possibility that the earliest genes actually coded for two
different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the
understanding of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we
continue to seek additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno
hypothesis

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving
faster than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from
religious nutter sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I
can't stay current with anything but a small fraction of what
is happening. I've got bookcases filled with data on ICs
(easily 500 cubic feet of books literally tons of books) and
most of it is obsolete. In fact new data sheets predict the
life span and obsolescence of parts even before the parts hit
the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you
incorrigible moron."

That doesn't explain why you love fantasy, and why you are so
easily deceived.

Nor have you explained your claim that Noah's
ark has been found.

,> So whether or not the Ark is found, there is plenty of
,> evidence that the event was real.

.> > Oddest thing about that: only a vanishingly small
.> > percent of the people actually knowledgable
.> > about the evidence -- the geologists, the stratigraphers,
.> > the paleontologists -- agree with you.
.> So some of them -do- agree with the above.

And the vast majority do not. There will always be crackpots.

Post by Andrew
Thanks.

.> Many times it turns out that the minority are
.> the ones who were correct.

Really? "Many times"? Many

How about just a dozen examples then, from the history
of science in, oh, say the last 100 years:
.> > And it's not like they reject global catastrophes
.> > prima facie ...
.> So they -do- acknowledge global catastrophes.

Correct. The creationist claim that they only
accept uniformitarian mechanisms is absurd.

.> Why? Evidence, that's why.

Yep. Because of evidence.
And they find zero evidence for a global flood.

Seth

Post by Andrew
Thanks again!

Cloud Hobbit

2016-09-26 04:43:02 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve
around fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty
good job of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your
information from religious nutters that know less about it than
you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful
statistical probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living
chemicals is about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire
State building and having it land on top of another penny you
put at street level. You toss a penny off the observation deck
every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable
betting your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor
of it happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the
different breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form
with the chemicals and energy present (ultraviolet light,
thermal and geothermal, electrical, etc.) working hit or miss,
to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on
the street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The
statistical probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily
in labs. The chemicals necessary are all around, and the
splicing a matter of miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...
Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply
puzzling because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural
or mechanistic homologies. We have developed strong evidence
that the enzymatic activities of Urzymes derived from Class I
TrpRS and Class II HisRS are authentic. The explicit location
of the original catalytic fragments and their experimental
activities together validate predictions derived from the
hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno that the two classes were
originally encoded by opposite strands of the same gene. The
possibility that the earliest genes actually coded for two
different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the
understanding of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we
continue to seek additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno
hypothesis

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving
faster than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from
religious nutter sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I
can't stay current with anything but a small fraction of what
is happening. I've got bookcases filled with data on ICs
(easily 500 cubic feet of books literally tons of books) and
most of it is obsolete. In fact new data sheets predict the
life span and obsolescence of parts even before the parts hit
the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you
incorrigible moron."

That doesn't explain why you love fantasy, and why you are so
easily deceived.

Nor have you explained your claim that Noah's
ark has been found.

My claim was that the great Deluge did occur and that
explains the multi-trillions of fossils that we find world-
wide.

There is no evidence of a great deluge that covered the entire surface of the earth. It did not happen.

The fossils we find are the results of different circumstances none of which are a world wide flood. None of the fossils are found the way they would be if there had been such a flood.

The whole flood story is plagiarized from the story of Gilgamesh.

That are evidence of plants and animals that were

Post by Andrew
quickly buried under super extreme global catastrophic
conditions. That is what the evidence shows. It actually
happened.

There are fossils coming from the La Brea Tar pits that say otherwise.
Fossils can be created by different means, but always by being buried quickly.
http://www.livescience.com/37781-how-do-fossils-form-rocks.html

MORE

Partner Series
How Do Fossils Form?
Skeleton of the bird-like specimen (Aurornis xui) found in Yizhou Fossil & Geology Park, China.
Credit: Thierry Hubin/IRSNB

When animals, plants and other organisms die, they typically decay completely. But sometimes, when the conditions are just right, they're preserved as fossils.

Several different physical and chemical processes create fossils, according to the New York State Geological Survey.

Freezing, drying and encasement, such as in tar or resin, can create whole-body fossils that preserve bodily tissues. These fossils represent the organisms as they were when living, but these types of fossils are very rare.

Most organisms become fossils when they're changed through various other means.

The heat and pressure from being buried in sediment can sometimes cause the tissues of organisms — including plant leaves and the soft body parts of fish, reptiles and marine invertebrates — to release hydrogen and oxygen, leaving behind a residue of carbon.

This process — which is called carbonization, or distillation — yields a detailed carbon impression of the dead organism in sedimentary rock.

The most common method of fossilization is called permineralization, or petrification. After an organism's soft tissues decay in sediment, the hard parts — particularly the bones — are left behind.

Water seeps into the remains, and minerals dissolved in the water seep into the spaces within the remains, where they form crystals. These crystallized minerals cause the remains to harden along with the encasing sedimentary rock.

In another fossilization process, called replacement, the minerals in groundwater replace the minerals that make up the bodily remains after the water completely dissolves the original hard parts of the organism.

Fossils also form from molds and casts. If an organism completely dissolves in sedimentary rock, it can leave an impression of its exterior in the rock, called an external mold. If that mold gets filled with other minerals, it becomes a cast.

An internal mold forms when sediments or minerals fill the internal cavity, such as a shell or skull, of an organism, and the remains dissolve.

Organic remnants

In recent years, researchers have discovered that some fossils aren't just made of minerals. Fossil analyses have shown, for instance, that some retain organic material dated to the Cretaceous, a period that lasted from 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago, and the Jurassic period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago

Tests suggest that these organic materials belong to dinosaurs because they match certain proteins from birds, which evolved from dinosaurs.

"It used to be that no one thought it was possible for any endogenous material — material that comes from the animal — could be left behind after the fossilization process," said Ken Lacovara, the dean of the School of Earth and Environment at Rowan University in New Jersey. "[But] that's not really the case."

It's unclear how the organic material is preserved, but iron might help the proteins become cross-linked and unrecognizable, or unavailable to the bacteria that would otherwise consume them, Lacovara said. (Formaldehyde works in a similar way, cross-linking the amino acids that make up proteins, making them more resistant to decay, Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, told Live Science.)

Another idea is "microbial masonry," Lacovara said. "It's possible that the bacteria that initially chomped through the tissue are secreting minerals as a waste product that then hermetically [airtight] seal a little bit of what remains behind," almost like a stone mason sealing off a structure, he told Live Science.

Moreover, sandstone — rock made of sand-size grains of minerals, sediments or inorganic material — seems to be the best type of environment for preserving organic material in fossils.

"Sandstone is like a bunch of volleyballs sitting on top of each other with big interstitial [spaced] areas between them," Lacovara said. "So it seems like rapid decay might promote the preservation process. Maybe we need the bacteria to get through fast and to chomp through the sediment so that they can sequester some of [the surviving organic material] in the process."

Post by Andrew
So whether or not the Ark is found, there is plenty of
evidence that the event was real.

There is zero evidence of that. Zero evidece of your flood, the ark or Noah.
It's all nonsense.

Andrew

2016-09-26 05:45:44 UTC

Post by Andrew
So whether or not the Ark is found, there is plenty of
evidence that the event was real.

There is zero evidence of that. Zero evidece of your
flood, the ark or Noah. It's all nonsense.

If you keep repeating that, do you think it then becomes
true? It doesn't. It is foolish for one to fight against the
truth.

nature bats last

2016-09-26 05:54:00 UTC

Post by Andrew
So whether or not the Ark is found, there is plenty of
evidence that the event was real.

There is zero evidence of that. Zero evidece of your
flood, the ark or Noah. It's all nonsense.

.> If you keep repeating that, do you think it then becomes
.> true? It doesn't. It is foolish for one to fight against the
.> truth.

Ah, sweet irony.

Seth

Mitchell Holman

2016-09-26 12:25:55 UTC

Post by Andrew
So whether or not the Ark is found, there is plenty of
evidence that the event was real.

There is zero evidence of that. Zero evidece of your
flood, the ark or Noah. It's all nonsense.

If you keep repeating that, do you think it then becomes
true? It doesn't. It is foolish for one to fight against the
truth.

Fact check: The oldest place on earth are
igneous rock beds in Canada that are 4 Billion
years old. They are not covered by any Bronze
age sedimentary layers and never have been.
http://tinyurl.com/75pk96c

Jeanne Douglas

2016-09-26 12:47:22 UTC

Post by Andrew
So whether or not the Ark is found, there is plenty of
evidence that the event was real.

There is zero evidence of that. Zero evidece of your
flood, the ark or Noah. It's all nonsense.

If you keep repeating that, do you think it then becomes
true? It doesn't. It is foolish for one to fight against the
truth.

--
JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.

Wexford Eire

2016-09-26 15:51:33 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve
around fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty
good job of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your
information from religious nutters that know less about it than
you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-close
r-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful
statistical probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living
chemicals is about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire
State building and having it land on top of another penny you
put at street level. You toss a penny off the observation deck
every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable
betting your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor
of it happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the
different breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form
with the chemicals and energy present (ultraviolet light,
thermal and geothermal, electrical, etc.) working hit or miss,
to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on
the street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The
statistical probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily
in labs. The chemicals necessary are all around, and the
splicing a matter of miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

You want to check your facts...
Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are deeply
puzzling because they exhibit no obvious sequence, structural
or mechanistic homologies. We have developed strong evidence
that the enzymatic activities of Urzymes derived from Class I
TrpRS and Class II HisRS are authentic. The explicit location
of the original catalytic fragments and their experimental
activities together validate predictions derived from the
hypothesis advanced by Rodin and Ohno that the two classes were
originally encoded by opposite strands of the same gene. The
possibility that the earliest genes actually coded for two
different polypeptides would substantially change our ideas of
how life began and have important implications for the
understanding of the contemporary proteome. For this reason, we
continue to seek additional evidence regarding the Rodin-Ohno
hypothesis

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving
faster than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from
religious nutter sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I
can't stay current with anything but a small fraction of what
is happening. I've got bookcases filled with data on ICs
(easily 500 cubic feet of books literally tons of books) and
most of it is obsolete. In fact new data sheets predict the
life span and obsolescence of parts even before the parts hit
the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you
incorrigible moron."

That doesn't explain why you love fantasy, and why you are so
easily deceived.

Nor have you explained your claim that Noah's
ark has been found.

My claim was that the great Deluge did occur and that
explains the multi-trillions of fossils that we find world-
wide.

Nuts, unless you believe the flood lasted for millions of years, moron.

That are evidence of plants and animals that were

Post by Andrew
quickly buried under super extreme global catastrophic
conditions. That is what the evidence shows. It actually
happened.

Not world-wide, dreamer and not at once.

Post by Andrew
So whether or not the Ark is found, there is plenty of
evidence that the event was real.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the event was real.

Andrew

2016-09-26 16:28:27 UTC

Post by Wexford Eire
There is no evidence whatsoever that the event was real.

If you keep repeating that did you think it then becomes
truth? It doesn't. It is foolish for scoffers to fight against
the truth. Yet they must in order for the Scriptures to be
fulfilled.

"Scoffers will come in the last days, walking according
to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of
His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things
continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

For this they willingly are ignorant: that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out
of water and in the water, by which the world that then
existed perished, being flooded with water."
~ 2 Peter 3:3-6

It says that in the "last days" there will be ~"scoffers"~
who are ~"willingly ignorant"~ who deny the evidence
that the event was real.

nature bats last

2016-09-26 17:25:38 UTC

Post by Wexford Eire
There is no evidence whatsoever that the event was real.

If you keep repeating that did you think it then becomes
truth? It doesn't. It is foolish for scoffers to fight against
the truth. Yet they must in order for the Scriptures to be
fulfilled.

.> "Scoffers will come in the last days, walking according
.> to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of
.> His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things
.> continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

Anyone with a lust for reason, rationality, or just plain
old common sense will point out that believers have
been saying "Any day now", "Surely within our lifetime",
"All the signs are being fulfilled" for two thousand years now.

And counting...

Post by Andrew
For this they willingly are ignorant: that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out
of water and in the water, by which the world that then
existed perished, being flooded with water."
~ 2 Peter 3:3-6
.

.> It says that in the "last days" there will be ~"scoffers"~
.> who are ~"willingly ignorant"~ who deny the evidence
.> that the event was real.

Being that there have been scoffers for two thousand years now,
looks like "the last days" have turned into "the last millennia".

And so it goes.

Seth

Wexford Eire

2016-09-26 18:56:35 UTC

Post by Wexford Eire
There is no evidence whatsoever that the event was real.

If you keep repeating that did you think it then becomes
truth? It doesn't. It is foolish for scoffers to fight against
the truth. Yet they must in order for the Scriptures to be
fulfilled.

You seem to think that if you keep repeating your arrant nonsense, it becomes the truth. I see you snipped my other comments, you dishonest twerp.

Post by Andrew
"Scoffers will come in the last days, walking according
to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of
His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things
continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
For this they willingly are ignorant: that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out
of water and in the water, by which the world that then
existed perished, being flooded with water."
~ 2 Peter 3:3-6
It says that in the "last days" there will be ~"scoffers"~
who are ~"willingly ignorant"~ who deny the evidence
that the event was real.

The passage refers to the Second Coming, moron, not Noe's flood.

Cloud Hobbit

2016-09-26 19:01:57 UTC

It also says that there was a massive exodus of a million people from Egypt who had been slaves yet not a shred of evidence exists that anything about this story is true.

The bible is a collection of stories. Some of the stories have settings in places that exist and with people who were real, but aside from that it is all unevidenced nonsense.

nature bats last

2016-09-26 19:52:39 UTC

Post by Wexford Eire
There is no evidence whatsoever that the event was real.

If you keep repeating that did you think it then becomes
truth? It doesn't.

.> It is foolish for scoffers to fight against
.> the truth. Yet they must in order for the Scriptures to be
.> fulfilled.

So if everyone stops scoffing, Jesus would get stuck?

Seth

Wexford Eire

2016-09-26 15:49:32 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science and get your information
from religious nutters that know less about it than you.

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living chemicals is
about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire State building and
having it land on top of another penny you put at street level. You
toss a penny off the observation deck every day.
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable betting
your life it would never happen in your lifetime.
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor of it
happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the different
breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form with the chemicals
and energy present (ultraviolet light, thermal and geothermal,
electrical, etc.) working hit or miss, to form chemical compounds.
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on the
street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The statistical
probability just went from zero to indubitable.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.
The chemicals necessary are all around, and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science, your target is moving faster
than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from religious nutter
sites is not the answer.
I've worked in electronics most of my life from age 5-6, I can't stay
current with anything but a small fraction of what is happening. I've
got bookcases filled with data on ICs (easily 500 cubic feet of books
literally tons of books) and most of it is obsolete. In fact new data
sheets predict the life span and obsolescence of parts even before the
parts hit the market. (in an effort to avoid designing with parts
that will be hard to find in a few years)

Thanks for the link. Great article.

Because you obviously love fantasy, and are easily deceived.

They you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron.

That should say "Thank you for the gratuitous insult, you incorrigible moron."

That doesn't explain why you love fantasy, and why you are so
easily deceived.

Where did you get the idea that I was a Bible literalist. Of course I don't believe in the brutal fairy tales you love.

Post by Andrew
Aren't you the one who said, "Thanks for the link. Great article."?
Yes, it was you. Therefore you testify that you are into fantasy.

Can rebut the article or even discuss it intelligently? No, you can't. So, shut up and go away twerp.

Andrew

2016-09-25 15:47:55 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

If a scientist places himself in a 'box' then
he will find truth only if it is in that 'box'.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science

You are obfuscating. Since you cannot address
the issue, you obfuscate and insult. Which tells
us that you are foolishly trying to fight against
the truth.

Post by default
and get your information from religious
nutters that know less about it than you.

No, but if so, why can't you show where?

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...

This is what you were taught. But you were taught
incorrectly, because this is not an issue of statistics.

Post by default
Let's say the chance for life forming out of non living chemicals is
about the same as dropping a penny from the Empire State building and
having it land on top of another penny you put at street level.

Which it is not, therefore you may forget the false analogy.

Post by default
You toss a penny off the observation deck every day.

Which happens to be illegal and you would go to jail.

You could also injure or even kill someone and be
cited as a terrorist.

Post by default
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable
betting your life it would never happen in your lifetime.

Guaranteed it wouldn't in your lifetime, because
you would soon wind up in jail - for life.

Post by default
Now take millions of years and the odds just changed in favor of it
happening by a factor of millions. Now consider all the different
breeding grounds for simple bacterial life to form with the chemicals
and energy present (ultraviolet light, thermal and geothermal,
electrical, etc.) working hit or miss, to form chemical compounds.

It would not produce life. This is what you were taught,
but you were taught incorrectly, because this is not an
issue of statistics.

If you have a supply of ink and paper, is it possible for
them to become books by naturalistic processes alone?

Absolutely not. But that's what you are trying to say.

Post by default
And in my Empire State analogy you've just paved the ground on the
street for six miles in every direction with pennies. The statistical
probability just went from zero to indubitable.

Sure, but it's a false analogy.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.

No they're not. Parts of them are.

Post by default
The chemicals necessary are all around,

Yet chemists can not make life.

Post by default
and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

They have to follow these silly hypothesis as a
qualification to continue receiving their grants.

It doesn't mean they actually believe it.

Post by Andrew
Here is evidence that unequivocally points
to--->an intelligent causation--->Creation.

The evidence is in for those who honestly
want to know the truth.
But I thank you for trying, and I hope you
have a great day.

You need to stay current with science,

You are not doing very well at that
if we go by that link you cited.

Post by default
your target is moving faster
than you can imagine. Getting half-baked ideas from religious nutter
sites is not the answer.

But that's what you have been doing.

So what are you going to do with them since they are now obsolete?

Post by default
In fact new data sheets predict the life span and obsolescence of parts
even before the parts hit the market. (in an effort to avoid designing
with parts that will be hard to find in a few years)

default

2016-09-25 17:54:51 UTC

Evidently you haven't read the theory on how
nature can and does make precursors to RNA
and the proteins of life.

RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are
*already* alive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

This is the best you can do? I'm not interested
in fantasy. So why did you post this? This was
not even written by a scientist.
Do you know the difference between empirical
science and fantasy?

Not interested in fantasy? How can you say that?! You are a
religious nutter; their whole lives and understanding revolve around
fantasy.
Science is trying to get at the facts, and they do a pretty good job
of it.

If a scientist places himself in a 'box' then
he will find truth only if it is in that 'box'.

Post by Andrew
And the "proteins of life" are synthesized 'only'
in cells that are *already* alive ~and~ strictly
only according to the "code" that is therein.

Not 'wrong' according to science.

But then you don't know much about science

You are obfuscating. Since you cannot address
the issue, you obfuscate and insult. Which tells
us that you are foolishly trying to fight against
the truth.

Post by default
and get your information from religious
nutters that know less about it than you.

No, but if so, why can't you show where?

Post by default
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/rna-world-inches-closer-explaining-origins-life

Of course not, but you are ignoring some very powerful statistical
probabilities...

This is what you were taught. But you were taught
incorrectly, because this is not an issue of statistics.

Which it is not, therefore you may forget the false analogy.

Post by default
You toss a penny off the observation deck every day.

Which happens to be illegal and you would go to jail.
You could also injure or even kill someone and be
cited as a terrorist.

Post by default
What are the odds? Large enough so you'd feel comfortable
betting your life it would never happen in your lifetime.

Guaranteed it wouldn't in your lifetime, because
you would soon wind up in jail - for life.

It would not produce life. This is what you were taught,
but you were taught incorrectly, because this is not an
issue of statistics.
If you have a supply of ink and paper, is it possible for
them to become books by naturalistic processes alone?
Absolutely not. But that's what you are trying to say.

Sure, but it's a false analogy.

You should know by now that RNA and DNA are synthesized daily in labs.

No they're not. Parts of them are.

Post by default
The chemicals necessary are all around,

Yet chemists can not make life.

Post by default
and the splicing a matter of
miniscule amounts of energy.

Post by Andrew
"The RNA world hypothesis is..little more
than a popular fantasy."
~Dr.Charles Carter, biochemist

They have to follow these silly hypothesis as a
qualification to continue receiving their grants.
It doesn't mean they actually believe it.