Creationist child abusers close doors

PostmodernProphet said:
Father Time......
Click to expand...

Nope. You have poor reading comprehension and clearly did not understand the article here, which overcomes the time issues within the terrestrial frame, or the one talking about time and panspermia in the other thread. You don't actually read, you just skim for ammunition and fail to fully incorporate or consider the information. It explains why you are such a thoroughly misguided and delusional fool.

As I stated previously, you don't know what evolution is and you are clearly not capable of refuting it or any other theory.

Evolution explains the diversity of life. It is not a theory intending to explain the origin of life. It is very likely that the origin of life came about through processes similar to those driving evolution.
 
Professor Baxter said:
It is not a theory intending to explain the origin of life. It is very likely that the origin of life came about through processes similar to those driving evolution.
Click to expand...

I realize the origin of life is another insurmountable obstacle for you......but the issue at hand is that period of time between the origin of life and its current status.........there simply isn't enough of it......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I realize the origin of life is another insurmountable obstacle for you......but the issue at hand is that period of time between the origin of life and its current status.........there simply isn't enough of it......
Click to expand...

No, that is not the issue at hand. If you had read the article posted here or the paper in the other thread you would know that.

There is no reason to believe it is an insurmountable obstacle.

It is insurmountable for you. You just punt and claim it always was or discard all of science to prance around in your fantasy world of unicorns, magical boats, a garden where nothing ever died, except plants, and Adam and Eve had a pet T Rex.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
odd....I'm the one who brought it up, you'd think I knew what it was.......
Click to expand...

Okay, then what is your support for it as an insurmountable obstacle?

The article here and the paper from the other thread say it is NOT an insurmountable obstacle for theories involving evolution. On the other hand the paper from the other thread DID indicate that it was not possible that the earth was created by an intelligent designer. You ignored that and picked out only the parts that support your fairy tales about the immortal Adam, Eve and their vegetarian pet dinosaurs in the magical garden of Eden.
 
But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That's a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth's age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today. "The RNA world hypothesis is extremely unlikely," said Carter. "It would take forever."
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130913185848.htm
 
by the way, you criticized someone for not quoting the whole article, but I note you left off the final statement yourself....
The study leaves open the question of exactly how those primitive systems managed to replicate themselves -- something neither the RNA World hypothesis nor the Peptide-RNA World theory can yet explain. Carter, though, is extending his research to include polymerases -- enzymes that actually assemble the RNA molecule. Finding an Urzyme that serves that purpose would help answer that question.
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130913185848.htm
Click to expand...

You only quoted what that article suggests is superseded by the research done by Carter.

"Our results suggest that there were very active protein enzymes very early in the generation of life, before there were organisms," Carter said. "And those enzymes were very much like the Urzymes we've made."

The finding also suggests that Urzymes evolved from even simpler ancestors -- tiny proteins called peptides. And over time those peptides co-evolved with RNA to give rise to more complex life forms.


In this "Peptide-RNA World" scenario, RNA would have contained the instructions for life while peptides would have accelerated key chemical reactions to carry out those instructions.


"To think that these two Urzymes might have launched protein synthesis before there was life on Earth is totally electrifying," Carter said. "I can't imagine a much more exciting result to be working on, if one is interested in the origin of life."

Carter's hypothesis is different from the RNA World hypothesis. Did you fail to absorb that or are you just a liar?
 
Whenever creationists start to argue science with scientists, they fall into a trap. That's the same trap the ID'ers fell into when they started to argue irreducible complexity in the Dover school district trial. And the ID argument has gone downhill ever since.

Creationists need to stay strictly with creationism and stay completely away from borrowing from science to forward their arguments.
 
Professor Baxter said:
It did.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf

Second, there was no intelligent life in our universe at the time of the origin of Earth, because the universe was 8 billion years old at that time, whereas the development of intelligent life requires ca. 10 billion years of evolution.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf
Click to expand...


??....does that somehow "prove" that intelligent life wasn't created later than 8 billion years ago?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
by the way, you criticized someone for not quoting the whole article, but I note you left off the final statement yourself....
Click to expand...

It's not relevant to the point the poster was making.

We are never going to run out of questions. Our lack of omnipotence does not mean that all knowledge is useless, just yours. The vicious infinite regress is a weak argument and not solved by your fairy tales.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You only quoted what that article suggests is superseded by the research done by Carter.

"Our results suggest that there were very active protein enzymes very early in the generation of life, before there were organisms," Carter said. "And those enzymes were very much like the Urzymes we've made."

The finding also suggests that Urzymes evolved from even simpler ancestors -- tiny proteins called peptides. And over time those peptides co-evolved with RNA to give rise to more complex life forms.


In this "Peptide-RNA World" scenario, RNA would have contained the instructions for life while peptides would have accelerated key chemical reactions to carry out those instructions.


"To think that these two Urzymes might have launched protein synthesis before there was life on Earth is totally electrifying," Carter said. "I can't imagine a much more exciting result to be working on, if one is interested in the origin of life."

Carter's hypothesis is different from the RNA World hypothesis. Did you fail to absorb that or are you just a liar?
Click to expand...

dude....saying that their theory only works if there were Urzymes doesn't provide any evidence that Urzymes actually existed.....
 
monty1 said:
Whenever creationists start to argue science with scientists, they fall into a trap. That's the same trap the ID'ers fell into when they started to argue irreducible complexity in the Dover school district trial. And the ID argument has gone downhill ever since.

Creationists need to stay strictly with creationism and stay completely away from borrowing from science to forward their arguments.
Click to expand...

why do you consider irreducible complexity to be a failed argument?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top