Shalom

[Dan Ben Noah]

Shalom

[Nachus]

 

 Fantastic, informative video and articles which prove the Creationists have the right idea and that the Devilutionists
 do not want to be shown up reflecting their ignorance. Those that follow a  e.g. "Darwinian" type stupidstition are
 obviously wrong. A synopsis on a controversial and complex issue that is explained in relatively simple 
 terms.  Excellent Dan

[Meerkat]

evolution (change in life) is a whole different process than abiogenesis (start of life)



right here!

[Meerkat]

What's your point?

context for the video

[Meerkat]

Funny how spontaneous generation was disproved before but now that scientists have an axe to grind against G-d, they wheel, deal, and engineer a way for it to happen.  That video about abiogenesis is lame and does nothing to show how life came from non-life.

its science for you, stuff gets theorized, proven, and disproven all the time.

anyway, it does show how life started, it gave you the process leading up to a self-replicating polymer inside a membrane, in other words, a life form.

[Meerkat]

No it gave a very simplistic version of how they claim it could have happened, but it didn't give the start to all the processes that go on in cells, or a reason why this process doesn't repeat itself and how life doesn't come from non-life on a regular basis, or how to produce life in the laboratory.  The reason is because there are gaps in the theory.  It used to be a "primordial soup" theory but then that went out in favor of the hydrothermic vent theory--anything is fine as long as it excludes G-d, and you can't get rid of one atheistic theory until you have another one that replaces it.  That is how historic science works for atheists since you can't observe it.

all the other processes the go on in a cell? that's where evolution comes in, we already got our primitive life form. RNA, as mentioned, can self-replicate as well as manufacture proteins. give it a few good mutations that give it a competitive advantage and you have something a bit more complex. as far as i know this has not been replicated since abiogenesis is still fairly new.

as i mentioned, stuff gets proven and disprove all the time. when a new hypothesis comes up and there is every chance in the world that new data will show up that will either prove it, force alterations, or shatter it.

[Meerkat]

RNA is not that simple, you don't get a self-replicating molecule that manufactures proteins from nothing.  Plus if something is in a membrane, what is it competing against?  This is like saying you could reproduce Elijah's flaming chariot with a combination of the science behind spontaneous combustion and worm holes, or like replacing the idea of light with a "dark-sucker" theory and then try to figure out how to make everything work.  Of course, scientists don't have to worry about that because we're not faced with the everyday question of how that happened.  But we are faced with the question of how we got here because we are here.  So they can't just deny history like they do with other miracles.  They have to engineer away around it, hence abiogenesis theories.

the RNA itself is not a life form, it is within a membrane though. it makes protiens by capturing ammino acids and polypeptids into the membrane and doing whatever it needs with them.