Yet even MORE supporting evidence ...

[TheLurch]

What HAS been observed doesn't even take the first step towards first base in explaining how life arose from raw chemicals.

Ah, so we agree, given that the research that has gone on so far is well past first base.

[oxmixmudd]

Regarding O-Mudd, I have long stated that often times there is little-to-no difference between his position and that of Atheists. The above post represents yet another example supporting my claim.

Jorge

The atheists and I disagree quite a bit on Theology Jorge - though I feel no need to be antagonistic when we discuss those differences.

But this is science Jorge, not theology.

Do you have anything useful to say about the science?

(probably not ...)


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Thank you LORD that I am not Roy!!!!!!!!

Still haven't read that pesky old story Jesus told about the Pharisee and the Tax Collector praying in the temple - have you?

Jim

[rogue06]

The atheists and I disagree quite a bit on Theology Jorge - though I feel no need to be antagonistic when we discuss those differences.

But this is science Jorge, not theology.

Do you have anything useful to say about the science?

(probably not ...)


Jim

Just remember when militant atheists, like Richard Dawkins, tell Christians how they need to read the Bible Jorge puts on his nightie and jumps right into bed with him, but if any other Christian dares to agree with any atheist over a scientific point then in Jorge's eyes they are closet atheists.

[One Bad Pig]

Those "requirements" include: intellectual dishonesty, distorting facts,
rewriting history, re-interpreting events to suit an agenda ... and similar.

Jorge

Don't sell yourself short. You meet those pretty well, Jorge.

[Sea of red]

Don't sell yourself short. You meet those pretty well, Jorge.

[Kbertsche]

Source: abstract from May13 science

The RNA World hypothesis posits that RNA was one of the first self-replicating molecules leading to the origin of life. The nucleotide bases of RNA—A, U, C, and G—are chemically complex, and it has been unclear how the large purine bases A and G might have arisen on prebiotic Earth. Becker et al. show that the A and G bases can be synthesized easily and in high yield from prebiotically reasonable precursors, lending further support to the RNA World hypothesis.

© Copyright Original Source

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6287/833

Research continues. Sometimes it takes a while to work it out. We still don't understand elements of how or why tornadoes form or how they behave, yet they happen every year, every month of the year, sometimes many on a single day. "God of the gaps" is always a weak argument Jorge. Go for something stronger.


Jim

Jim and others, my impression is that OOL research is not making much progress at all. I recently saw a video by Fuz Rana where he claimed that the RNA world hypothesis has serious problems. If any of you have time to critique his video (30 minutes long?), I'd appreciate it. (Biology is not my area of expertise.)

[TheLurch]

Jim and others, my impression is that OOL research is not making much progress at all. I recently saw a video by Fuz Rana where he claimed that the RNA world hypothesis has serious problems. If any of you have time to critique his video (30 minutes long?), I'd appreciate it. (Biology is not my area of expertise.)

Your impression is wrong. But the progress hasn't been even - lately, most of the big advances have been in synthesizing the four DNA/RNA bases under conditions that were probably present in the early earth. Work on membrane formation/protocells is going well. Progress with catalytic RNAs has been a bit slower.

Origin of life encompasses multiple problems at this point, since the field's still solidifying.

I might have time for a 30 minute video later in the week. But i'm not aware of any RNA world issues that are considered showstoppers.

[Jorge]

Ah, so we agree, given that the research that has gone on so far is well past first base.

Is that some kind of New Age "logic"???

If the research hasn't event taken one step towards first
base, then how do you arrive at "well past first base"?

Anyway, yours is the kind of response that I fully expected to get.

Jorge

[Jorge]

The atheists and I disagree quite a bit on Theology Jorge - though I feel no need to be antagonistic when we discuss those differences.

So you keep saying. The evidence supports the contrary. Besides, the important point is in WHAT you agree and disagree with them. You are in full agreement with them on points that cast all manner of doubt on Scripture as plainly written and soundly interpreted. You are in full agreement with them on many matters that support their worldview leading to the consequences of that worldview. Accept it, O-Mudd, folks like you are counted among the best allies that Atheists have in their war against God.

Furthermore, as I've said to you many times you are far, far more dangerous than a hardcore Atheist. Why? Because if a Richard Dawkins stands in front of a young Christian, all of his defenses are up and ready whereas that same individual will lower his defenses in your presence, thinking that he is with one of his own. Little does he know that he is about to receive a spiritual onslaught against God's Word that would make Dawkins envious. In fact, Dawkins can just stand aside knowing that that young Christian is in "good hands" as far as the Atheist agenda is concerned. You will tell the young Christian to "love and believe in Christ" while at the same time sowing all kinds of destructive spiritual seeds against orthodox Christianity. By the time you're done with him, he'll be running to embrace Richard Dawkins.

But this is science Jorge, not theology.

Do you have anything useful to say about the science?

(probably not ...)

Jim

Given that I've worked in/with science essentially all of my career then your question is ridiculous. You just have to try ad hominem every chance you get - it's all ya got!

From my beginnings here I've stated that the strategy of you people is to disguise your religious beliefs as "science" and to then attack anyone that doesn't accept that "science".

Truth be told, that strategy works on the vast majority of people. Most individuals have been bamboozled into accepting that this is a "science versus religion" war with you guys standing for "science".

When you learn that truth and accept it, we can talk. Until then you are merely trying to draw me into your "science versus religion" scam. Sorry, O-Mudd -- I've been wise to that con job for decades.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

Well, that was a painful way to spend a half hour.

The number of things that were flat out false were staggering. A few that spring to mind:

Information comes form a mind, which is false. Otherwise, we'd never get information out of things like starlight.
Biochemical information is not like a language. Linguists would die if they heard that.
Computers do not operate on the same principles as biological systems. DNA computing is actually really challenging to get to operate anything like a binary system. And they are far less powerful than any cell phone, much less a supercomputer.

As for the origin of life issues, only a single source is cited as indicating there are any: Leslie Orgel. Orgel has been dead since 2007. He died in hospice care due to cancer at the age of 80, so probably wasn't doing much in the way of research for a considerable amount of time before that. To say that he wouldn't be a source on recent progress is a gross understatement.

Yet he's the only source cited for problems with two of the major branches of study - none of the problems themselves are ever mentioned. The problems in the 3rd branch? Rana simply cites himself.

He then goes on to basically claim that it's impossible for ANY research to generate evidence for abiogenesis. People must be involved in it, and people are intelligent, so all they'd be doing is generating evidence for intelligent design. Why does he bother with something that's nothing more than a rhetorical trick? Because he just had to admit that the people doing research were making incredible progress. (This happens near the 23 minute mark.)

Editorial interlude: he deserves to be mercilessly quotemined for that after what he did to Orgel's talk and Simon Conway-Morris and Paul Davies later in his talk.

You only get to an anti-RNA world argument at around 26 minutes in. And at that point, he pretends that oligermization on clay is the only game in town. It's not. It was the first promising result, but oligermization has since been demonstrated under a variety of conditions. I can't even evaluate whether he's complaining about the current state of the art with clays, or just the struggle to figure out the conditions that would have accompanied the first efforts to get this to work.

As for his claim of inhibitory materials and others that would degrade the RNA being present on the early earth, he didn't name any, so i can't evaluate that claim. I do know that the primary reason for RNA's stability in the modern earth is the fact that life is here already, and most life views RNA as a threat (due to RNA viruses) or food. So we and just about everything else shed RNA degrading enzymes into the environment.

In short: badly out of date, misleading, and extremely selective in terms of what he decides to present.

[oxmixmudd]

[QUOTE=Jorge;324624]So you keep saying. The evidence supports the contrary. Besides, the important point is in WHAT you agree and disagree with them. You are in full agreement with them on points that cast all manner of doubt on Scripture as plainly written and soundly interpreted. You are in full agreement with them on many matters that support their worldview leading to the consequences of that worldview. Accept it, O-Mudd, folks like you are counted among the best allies that Atheists have in their war against God. [QUOTE]

Well - that is your opinion Jorge. That and $5 will get you a Happy Meal.

Furthermore, as I've said to you many times you are far, far more dangerous than a hardcore Atheist. Why? Because if a Richard Dawkins stands in front of a young Christian, all of his defenses are up and ready whereas that same individual will lower his defenses in your presence, thinking that he is with one of his own. Little does he know that he is about to receive a spiritual onslaught against God's Word that would make Dawkins envious. In fact, Dawkins can just stand aside knowing that that young Christian is in "good hands" as far as the Atheist agenda is concerned. You will tell the young Christian to "love and believe in Christ" while at the same time sowing all kinds of destructive spiritual seeds against orthodox Christianity. By the time you're done with him, he'll be running to embrace Richard Dawkins.

You know Jorge, I've not found that to be the case. What I've found is that there are a lot of folks out there that have walked away from faith because they have been told that if Evolution is true, the bible is false. And I've also found a lot of folks that find great comfort in learning it's not that kind of either/or situation. My message is that faith need not be an either or proposition between what we can observe about the Universe scientifically and and what the Bible teaches us about God and Salvation. And I've seen a lot of good fruit from giving that message so far. I have to be careful around folks like you, and even more so folks that believe like you do but are also starting to see that what science has discovered is in fact true. That tendency to believe in the either/or proposition you so proudly hail from runs deep, and can be very difficult to shake. And it always stands ready to devour any that will look outside the glass walls of YEC and who discover that YEC is built primarily on well intended half-truths and willful ignorance.

Given that I've worked in/with science essentially all of my career then your question is ridiculous. You just have to try ad hominem every chance you get - it's all ya got!

From my beginnings here I've stated that the strategy of you people is to disguise your religious beliefs as "science" and to then attack anyone that doesn't accept that "science".

Truth be told, that strategy works on the vast majority of people. Most individuals have been bamboozled into accepting that this is a "science versus religion" war with you guys standing for "science".

When you learn that truth and accept it, we can talk. Until then you are merely trying to draw me into your "science versus religion" scam. Sorry, O-Mudd -- I've been wise to that con job for decades.

Jorge

Well, if what you say is true, then you should have no problem engaging my thread on the Chesapeake Bay Impact event here

Funny how you ran off when I announced I'd start such a thread and then didn't return until it had left the first page of Nat Sci threads.

Exactly as I anticipated you would.


Jim

[Jorge]

Still haven't read that pesky old story Jesus told about the Pharisee and the Tax Collector praying in the temple - have you?

Jim

That statement fits perfectly with your M.O. of unlawfully sitting on the Judgment Seat.

My line, "Thank you LORD that I am not Roy!!!!!!!!" IN NO WAY states or even insinuates that I regard myself as sinless or better than Roy. It only states that I am so very happy that I am not Roy - which I am. I have my own spiritual "battles" to worry about.

Of course, leave it to you to interpret my words so as to paint me in the worst possible way.

You are a pathetic specimen, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Well - that is your opinion Jorge. That and $5 will get you a Happy Meal.

Thing is, I've supported my "opinion" with hundreds of posts from you.
Not that I expect you to accept that. It suits your agenda to see my
words as merely prejudiced "opinion" - that lets you off the hook.

You know Jorge, I've not found that to be the case. What I've found is that there are a lot of folks out there that have walked away from faith because they have been told that if Evolution is true, the bible is false.

That's it right there - that's what you refuse to understand / accept. If Evolution -- the Evolution that is being promoted everywhere and that you believe in -- is true then IN FACT the Bible is false - it MUST be. This is why you and others MUST distort Scripture in many ways - because if you don't do that then the contradictions cannot be avoided.

Evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive - can't you get that simple fact into your cranial cavity? Even Richard Dawkins, Atheist extraordinaire, recognized that OBVIOUS fact when he was a mere 16 years old. And yet you and folks like you can't/won't get it. Mystery of mysteries!

And I've also found a lot of folks that find great comfort in learning it's not that kind of either/or situation. My message is that faith need not be an either or proposition between what we can observe about the Universe scientifically and and what the Bible teaches us about God and Salvation. And I've seen a lot of good fruit from giving that message so far. I have to be careful around folks like you, and even more so folks that believe like you do but are also starting to see that what science has discovered is in fact true. That tendency to believe in the either/or proposition you so proudly hail from runs deep, and can be very difficult to shake. And it always stands ready to devour any that will look outside the glass walls of YEC and who discover that YEC is built primarily on well intended half-truths and willful ignorance.

You have a very simple-minded view -- a view that allows you to retain what would otherwise be a totally contradictory position. If that works for you then so be it.

Well, if what you say is true, then you should have no problem engaging my thread on the Chesapeake Bay Impact event here

What sort of false dichotomy, New Age logic is that? So if I DON'T engage your thread then what I say is "not true" -- that's the conclusion from your above statement. I guess, then, that it must not be true.

Funny how you ran off when I announced I'd start such a thread and then didn't return until it had left the first page of Nat Sci threads.

I always "run off" when faced with nonsense. Bad habit, I guess.

Exactly as I anticipated you would.


Jim

WOW! You're decaying back into the primordial slime that you believe you came from.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Don't sell yourself short. You meet those pretty well, Jorge.

Uh huh ... please try staying out of my posts. You have nothing but bile to offer.

Jorge