Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator-Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

[Vene]

Vene,

Read my other column. I find it incredulous that someone would take "elements of life" as a reference to the Periodic Table of Elements. I believe it's more a case of intellectual dishonesty on your part as no rational reader made such a mistake. Either that or it shows that you read the column with extreme narrow mindedness (hint, nothing in the first column EVEN DEALT WITH EVOLUTION as I stated specifically in it).

The link to the other column is on the new thread I started. As I can't yet post links I'll refer you to a copy of a previously held debate, SPECIFIC to evolution at the bottom of creationistsearcher dot wordpress dot com. If someone who can post links would post the direct link, I believe it would benefit the discussion.

When you discuss science use scientific language. Elements refers to the elements on the periodic table. It DOES NOT mean whatever you want it to. And who's talking about evolution? I'm talking about your failure to understand basic chemistry.

Excuse me US and Duck (2 posts, probably a Martin guy who's been following me around - I doubt this discussion so dragged him to this forum because of its intrinsic value).

Martin wrote a hit piece and I sent him a comment. He posts the IP from that. That night, after, his page "gets vandalized" and the same night, with no interaction between us, he starts a campaign to get mine deleted, a google stalking campaign, links everywhere, etc. I did initially think it might be someone here until I saw everything going on and until I saw the Richard Dawkins screens keep popping up on my comp (the next day or so). Now everything adds up.

It's also amazing how you have to go to personal libel and other tactics. That's the hallmark of your side.

Martin's not here, go be butthurt someplace else.

And, imagine that, you post an article on the internet filled with misinformation and logical fallacies, and *gasp* people call you out on your stupidity.

 

[Adivi]

Adivi,

Here's the take of theologians. The Creator transcends physicality, not just according to the Bible, but according to all religions the Creator is the Creator of physicality (and as the greatest theologians point out, the Creator of spirituality, as physicality can’t be formed from the spiritual and therefore the Creator must transcend both.
Think about it. It’s logically/philosophically sound, because the root cause of all these happenings needs to transcend physicality, as even from a scientific standpoint, physicality isn’t eternal (in and of itself) and needs to have had a definite beginning.
If we look at the complexity of physicality, we realize that the physical is finite and therefore must have a beginning. That leads to the root cause of physicality to be higher than physicality, the Creator to be intricately involved in its details, but to be higher than it and eternal.
That’s just a short overview and would be happy to discuss/debate.

Ah, so basically what you're saying is "God is special therefore the rule I just made up about 'everything' doesn't apply to him." Gotcha.

 

[Gawron]

I suppose this is the best place for this particular issue. Having already commented on the article under scrutiny, I want to reference a point made by ypostelnik on another thread which is now closed, a point which does have some merit. He spoke to the nature of the debate process here.

When I first found this website my initial thought was that it would be a civil place to debate various evolutionary and science related topics, essentially free of the usual vitriolic ire to be found in most discussions of evolution and related issues. I was wrong. There is a group of regularly posting members who seem to frequent these forums for the sole purpose of attacking anyone who questions evolutionary theory at any level and/or professes a belief in God. Some of these are lurkers, appearing only when they can attack someone for making a statement they either disagree with or believe to be wrong. I won’t list any names because there it would serve no productive purpose, but there are at least six or seven individuals who follow this mold.

As an example, I refer back to what I recall as my 4th or 5th post on this website, one dealing with the evolution of whales. Over the next two pages of text, six different members, all listed as atheist, chimed in to call me a “YEC”, an “ignorant creationist”, “daft”, and “seriously screwed up”, just to list a few. So, I posted an extended response which illustrated that my original comment was both factually and scientifically correct. Only one of those six members had the decency to reply, but even he only to deliver a backhanded acknowledgement that he was “mildly impressed.”

Since then I have seen this pattern repeated time and time again, usually involving the same cabal of responders. Their comments are often highly arrogant, laced with contempt, disdain, personal attacks, and misrepresentations. They defend their beliefs, usually while denying they have any beliefs, with the same zeal as religious fundamentalist. It is sometimes funny to watch but also sad, and I admit that on occasion I have resorted to the same tactics and fought fire with fire. However, typically nothing is accomplished when this occurs.

The OP may not have made a logical argument here, and I only understand part of his reasoning for continuing to defend his position, but this does not justify vilifying him.

Here are two much more recent examples of what I mean. On a recent thread the OP there posed a general question about possible evolution. The question contained no reference to religion, Creationism or God, but the very first response was:

“I suppose it’s a bit like YEC and heaven, they get instant gratification of eternity in paradise for believing magical mysticism.”

A few post down, another member posted a response to the OP, and then asked another question. The immediate response was:

“You are an idiot.”

Maybe they should re-name the website.

Posted by TheGnome (on another thread):

“It's about being secure in one's religious ideology.”

Why not be secure in one’s religious ideology? Matters of faith are just that, and one either has faith or not. Faith is not always blind.

But I have a question for you guys. Consider the following:

Yale scientists create artificial 'cells' that boost the immune response to cancer.

“The artificial cells, developed byTarek Fahmy, assistant professor of biomedical engineering at Yale and his graduate student Erin Steenblock, are made of a material commonly used for biodegradable sutures. The authors say that the new method is the first “off-the-shelf” antigen-presenting artificial cell that can be tuned to target a specific disease or infection.”

Link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/yu-ysc022508.php

And this:

Artificial cell can make its own genes.

“An "artificial cell" capable of synthesising genes and making them into proteins has been developed by researchers in the US.”

“Cells are governed by genes which provide instructions for making proteins that carry out the cell's functions.”

“The postage stamp-sized machine able to make and express its own genes offers a fast and cheap new way of making "designer" proteins not found in nature. It could ultimately help scientists test how individual patients will react to specific drugs.”

Link: http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13568-artificial-cell-can-make-its-own-genes.html

If scientist eventually succeed in creating a fully functional artificial cell by design, will you still insist that there is no evidence of design within naturally occurring eukaryotic cells, and the possibility of an intelligent designer which designed them?

 

[Vene]

If scientist eventually succeed in creating a fully functional artificial cell by design, will you still insist that there is no evidence of design within naturally occurring eukaryotic cells, and the possibility of an intelligent designer which designed them?

Yes, because scientists are limited to entirely natural processes. And because this mysterious designer hasn't been shown. Because ID relies on a big argument from ignorance. Because the ID movement is religiously based (cdesign proponentsists). And because I apply to same standard to other natural (for lack of a better word) things that have been synthesized. Vitamin B-12 has been synthesized in the lab, but I don't think that it must have been pieced together by some unknown chemist coaxing chemicals to bond in specific patterns inside of bacteria.

Not to mention that the basis of ID is that complexity requires something more complex to design, so that means the designer is even more complex than life on Earth, so the designer must have been designed as well. And the designer's designer is even more complex, so that designer needs yet another designer. At some point a designer comes from natural processes (in which case complexity doesn't indicate a designer) or the designer is supernatural (in which case ID would be unscientific and doesn't belong in the science classroom).

 

[Bombila]

Exerpt:

But I have a question for you guys. Consider the following:

Yale scientists create artificial 'cells' that boost the immune response to cancer.

“The artificial cells, developed byTarek Fahmy, assistant professor of biomedical engineering at Yale and his graduate student Erin Steenblock, are made of a material commonly used for biodegradable sutures. The authors say that the new method is the first “off-the-shelf” antigen-presenting artificial cell that can be tuned to target a specific disease or infection.”

Link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/yu-ysc022508.php

And this:

Artificial cell can make its own genes.

“An "artificial cell" capable of synthesising genes and making them into proteins has been developed by researchers in the US.”

“Cells are governed by genes which provide instructions for making proteins that carry out the cell's functions.”

“The postage stamp-sized machine able to make and express its own genes offers a fast and cheap new way of making "designer" proteins not found in nature. It could ultimately help scientists test how individual patients will react to specific drugs.”

Link: http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13568-artificial-cell-can-make-its-own-genes.html

If scientist eventually succeed in creating a fully functional artificial cell by design, will you still insist that there is no evidence of design within naturally occurring eukaryotic cells, and the possibility of an intelligent designer which designed them?

I excised the long rant. Nevertheless: if you find that you are insulted or flamed, or someone else is, and it bothers you enough, report the offending post (red button upper right of every post). Moderators are standing by. Or do that other-cheek-turning thingie.

To resond to your ID question: why would we? We humans design and manufacture a great many fully functional items which are in one sense or another mimics of natural items, such as artificial rocks, silk-mimicing artificial fibres, robotic puppies, etc. Our advancing technology may allow us to invent and design functioning, reproducing cells - great! Maybe there are cures for diseases that can be made possible with this technology.

But that doesn't translate to thinking natural living cells are designed, any more than we would think naturally occurring rocks are designed, or that our ability to make concrete blocks means an Intelligent Designer (God) created natural rocks.

A major flaw in ID is that you have to imagine a Designer who had moments of brilliance interspersed with really bad days, because (for example) any competent MD can see that many aspects of human bodies are very poorly designed, leading to illnesses and disabilities. This negligent Designer also never bothered to return and fix any of these flaws, either.

Creationists who don't hide behind the veil of ID always cite the Fall as the reason for these flaws, and here we have to imagine a petulant deity who in essence says "Fine! Everythings going to just fall to bits now, it's your own fault and I'm not gonna fix anything, even if it means horrible suffering for lots and lots of innocent kids and animals!"

The only designers with any intelligence are humans, and usually, when they make mistakes, they revisit the design and change it until it works.

 

[Cabal]

Yomin, if you're still about on CF, do you want to carry on our debate from your other thread on this one?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Here are two much more recent examples of what I mean. On a recent thread the OP there posed a general question about possible evolution. The question contained no reference to religion, Creationism or God, but the very first response was:

“I suppose it’s a bit like YEC and heaven, they get instant gratification of eternity in paradise for believing magical mysticism.”

Opening Post

Originally Posted by faith guardian

Our culture of constant entertainment and instant gratification seems to be growing in many ways. People are more into what happens on 'america's got talent' (or the equivalent) than they are about what happens in politics and science. Ask who won the last "Idol" and more people will know that than what the LHC is.

I find it sad that science has taken a back seat. But I find it worse to see how 'instantaneous' society has become. Everything is supposed to happen immediately. On a 'personal' basis I can see this being of potential great danger to things like relationships, education, personal economy and the like.

I had a discussion the other day with a friend of mine - on this topic. A question arose: Could it affect our evolution?
I think (though I am not a biologist) that it's possible. We adapt to our surroundings. If we dwell in a culture of instant satisfaction I fear we might adapt to that, and loose a lot of what has brought us here.

What do you think? Can our culture affect our evolution?
​

My reply

I suppose it’s a bit like YEC and heaven, they get instant gratification of eternity in paradise for believing magical mysticism.

So I think the need for instant gratification as always been around.

If you are going to quote me, at least do me the honour of getting the context right.

 

[plindboe]

Gawron, you're awfully fond of playing victim while committing attacks yourself, the thread you mentioned being an obvious example. I'd agree that you have suffered unfair attacks, but you've been dealing them out too.

Likewise, ypostelnik's first post on this forum complained about attacks, yet contained its own set of sweeping attacks.

Matthew 7:3-5 had a thing to say about this.

Attacking is one thing, but attacking while playing an innocent martyr is hypocracy.

Try to put the us-vs.-them thinking aside for a moment and realize that some individuals attack, while some don't, and both of these kinds of inviduals exists in all groups.

Peter

 

[ypostelnik]

Cabal,

Yes, I'd like to debate and hope I can have an open and honest one with you. I can't do that over CL's one liners (that are usually poor twists or the like) or with baseless person attacks being brought up. If the others will let us do that then great.

I don't know why the other thread was shut down and didn't follow its development. It wasn't my first post and was in response to the nonsense that went on on this thread.

Here, in general, are a synopsis of my questions. I apologize if you already responded as I can't find the old thread.

Look at what Darwin actually said. Or if you want, forget Darwin and look at logic, which should be a new concept to you. If all you have is a supposition based on DNA and common characteristics, one of two things is true
a) they're related, through evolution
b) physical life forms share common physical characteristics

A good case for "a" would be found if there were evidence of clear transition, the gradual type that the evolution needs for its premise to be supported. The lack of these shows "b." We have a plethora of fossils that are supposedly from a very early stage, an equally large plethora of those supposedly from the latter stage, and absolutely nothing in between. Based on the amounts available of the other two categories it's safe to conclude that they're two different species, not one that gradually transitioned into another, with all steps of that transition, seemingly hundreds of generations, having disappeared (yet leaving behind the earlier fossils).

Abiogenesis is also a physical impossibility. Yet it would have had to occur multiple times for there to be a rich enough variance in RNA/DNA. That abiogenesis is not sound was attested to by Darwin in The Origin of Species, although only printed in the 6th edition.

Also explain how RNA and DNA came together to form cellular life if they came about independently.

Darwin saw that a Creator must have created the universe as well and would have agreed with the positions I outlined in the first column, none of which had to do with evolution (which was only dealt with in the second column). I doubt he would believe in evolution now given the lack of real transitional fossils (as logic would define them).

 

[ypostelnik]

plindboe,

Surely you jest. There's a big difference between being the target of, and responding in kind to, 5 relentless posters who do nothing but name call or twist words and refuse to deal with substance. That's been the hallmark of these threads and is what any Creationist meets on these boards. The earth science board is occupied by 90% atheists who attack any creationist in groups and then post to other threads saying "see it's a Christian Forum so even Christians are against creation." If your side had merit you'd see such tactics as well beneath you and grasping at straws. The other thread was not my first post btw, and was brought on by the nonsense that went on on this one.

 

[Psudopod]

A good case for "a" would be found if there were evidence of clear transition, the gradual type that the evolution needs for its premise to be supported. The lack of these shows "b." We have a plethora of fossils that are supposedly from a very early stage, an equally large plethora of those supposedly from the latter stage, and absolutely nothing in between. Based on the amounts available of the other two categories it's safe to conclude that they're two different species, not one that gradually transitioned into another, with all steps of that transition, seemingly hundreds of generations, having disappeared (yet leaving behind the earlier fossils).

I apologise if you have answered this and I've missed it, but could you just give me a brief run down on waht you think a good transitional would look like?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Yes, I'd like to debate and hope I can have an open and honest one with you. I can't do that over CL's one liners (that are usually poor twists or the like) or with baseless person attacks being brought up. If the others will let us do that then great.

They may be one liners, but that’s all it takes to destroy your propositions.

Here, in general, are a synopsis of my questions. I apologize if you already responded as I can't find the old thread.

Look at what Darwin actually said. Or if you want, forget Darwin and look at logic, which should be a new concept to you. If all you have is a supposition based on DNA and common characteristics, one of two things is true
a) they're related, through evolution
b) physical life forms share common physical characteristics

A good case for "a" would be found if there were evidence of clear transition, the gradual type that the evolution needs for its premise to be supported.


Like this LINK HORSE EVOLUTION

Or this LINK WHALE EVOLUTION AND OTHERS

Cetaceans (whales and dolphins)
Just several years ago, there was still a large gap in the fossil record of the cetaceans. It was thought that they arose from land-dwelling mesonychids that gradually lost their hind legs and became aquatic. Evolutionary theory predicted that they must have gone through a stage where they were partially aquatic but still had hind legs, but there were no known intermediate fossils. A flurry of recent discoveries from India and Pakistan (the shores of the ancient Tethys Sea) has pretty much filled this gap.

• Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene)
• Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene)
• Dissacus (mid-Paleocene)
• Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma)
• Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest known whale fossil
• Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- A recently discovered early whale, with enough of the limbs and vertebrae preserved to see how the early whales moved on land and in the water, this whale had four legs: front legs were stubby, back legs were short but well-developed, with enormous broad feet that stuck out behind like tail flukes, had no true tail flukes, just a long simple tail, size of a sea lion, still had a long snout with no blowhole, probably walked on land like a sea lion, and swam with a seal/otter method of steering with the front feet and propelling with the hind feet -- so, just as predicted, these early whales were much like modern sea lions: they could swim, but they could also still walk on land (Thewissen on whale evolution and 1994 below) P.D. Gingerich has also done a lot of work on the evolution of whales -- he argues they evolved from artiodactyls rather than mesonychian mammals

Picture to the left is a reconstruction of the skeleton of Ambulocetus natans. Source: Thewissen J.G.M., Hussain S.T., Arif M. "Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archaeocete whales." Science 1994, 263: 210-2

• Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Another very recent (1993) fossil whale discovery, had hind legs a third smaller than those of A. natans
• Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani -- small-legged whales mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma)
• Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) -- another recently discovered whale
• Eocetus, and similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene
• Dorudon intermedius -- a late Eocene whale ancestral to modern whales

In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:

• Toothed: Agorophius (late Oligocene), Prosqualodon (late Oligocene), Kentriodon (mid-Miocene)
• Baleen (Toothless): Aetiocetus (late Oligocene), Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) lost its teeth, modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene

The lack of these shows "b." We have a plethora of fossils that are supposedly from a very early stage, an equally large plethora of those supposedly from the latter stage, and absolutely nothing in between.

See above links, they show you to be very wrong

Based on the amounts available of the other two categories it's safe to conclude that they're two different species, not one that gradually transitioned into another, with all steps of that transition, seemingly hundreds of generations, having disappeared (yet leaving behind the earlier fossils).

Again you are making the assumption there are no or limited transition fossils, you are very wrong there are millions including this little land loving fish

Abiogenesis is also a physical impossibility.

No it is not; otherwise we would not be having this conversation. Let’s be honest, Abiogenesis is far more likely than a all powerful deity being spontaneously created.

Yet it would have had to occur multiple times for there to be a rich enough variance in RNA/DNA.

Not at all; and it may still be occurring, many scientist think Abiogenesis probably occurring in extreme environments, or at least extreme to us.

That abiogenesis is not sound was attested to by Darwin in The Origin of Species, although only printed in the 6th edition.

You would be better of reading some up to date literature on abiogenesis.

Shapiro, Robert, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. (1987, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-34355-6.)
This is one of two titles which I've seen for sale in both creationist and mainstream book-ordering services. It's the best introduction to the various abiogenesis hypotheses and their strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, Shapiro is a little overly skeptical, and today would have to eat some crow on a few of his criticisms -- only nine years after his publication date.

Cairns-Smith, A.G., Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. (1995, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-39828-2.)
Cairns-Smith is the best-known proponent of the "clay life" hypothesis. This book describes what Cairns-Smith believes to be the main problems with "standard" abiogenesis scenarios, and an overview of his own. The book is readable but non-technical and not referenced (it is a layman's version of Genetic Takeover, which is technical and well-referenced).

Fox, Ronald W., Energy and the Evolution of Life. (1988, W.H. Freeman and Company, ISBN 0-7167-1870-7.)
Fox discusses abiogenesis, mainly from a perspective of flow of energy. The book is reasonably technical. Counters some of the creationists' arguments against the origin of life which are supposedly based on thermodynamics.


Taken for Talk Origins



Also explain how RNA and DNA came together to form cellular life if they came about independently.

Biologist will answer this one, but I think the RNA world pre-dated the DNA world.

Darwin saw that a Creator must have created the universe as well and would have agreed with the positions I outlined in the first column, none of which had to do with evolution (which was only dealt with in the second column). I doubt he would believe in evolution now given the lack of real transitional fossils (as logic would define them).

Total nonsense, how about these.

 

[Blayz]

Best thing about this thread is its tags.

 

[God-free]

Bravo, ChordatesLegacy! I planned to post links for 'Tiktaalik' and the cutely nicknamed 'Frogamander'. But you've answered the "no transitional fossils" claim much better than I ever could.

~Barbara

 

[Cabal]

I don't know why the other thread was shut down and didn't follow its development. It wasn't my first post and was in response to the nonsense that went on on this thread.

Here, in general, are a synopsis of my questions. I apologize if you already responded as I can't find the old thread.

Not a problem, the original topic is here:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7250161

And my last response before the thread was closed is here:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47513612&postcount=32

Sorry for the copy-and-pasting, but I think I covered most of the points you made both here and in the other thread. And I'd also like to emphasise what I said at the end of my linked post - the original article was not so much about debating evolution, and I think a debate on that article would be more fruitful than the evolution side of things.

Also, you might be interested to know there's currently an abiogenesis debate going on the Creation and Evolution subforum of this board, there's some really interesting scientific stuff being brought up by both sides, here's the link:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47586657

The only additional thing I would like clarification on is:

Darwin saw that a Creator must have created the universe as well and would have agreed with the positions I outlined in the first column, none of which had to do with evolution (which was only dealt with in the second column). I doubt he would believe in evolution now given the lack of real transitional fossils (as logic would define them).

I take it when you say that you doubt Darwin would believe in evolution now, you mean that you doubt he would be convinced of the (not-explicitly-theistic) macroevolutionary origin of life as science currently claims it to be (I only ask because evolution (genetic variation etc) does still occur today). Am I correct?

 

[Morcova]

Cabal,

Yes, I'd like to debate and hope I can have an open and honest one with you. I can't do that over CL's one liners (that are usually poor twists or the like) or with baseless person attacks being brought up. If the others will let us do that then great.

I don't know why the other thread was shut down and didn't follow its development. It wasn't my first post and was in response to the nonsense that went on on this thread.

Here, in general, are a synopsis of my questions. I apologize if you already responded as I can't find the old thread.

Look at what Darwin actually said. Or if you want, forget Darwin and look at logic, which should be a new concept to you. If all you have is a supposition based on DNA and common characteristics, one of two things is true

Remember guys, you can't insult the holy Y but he can attack you all he wishes.

Abiogenesis is also a physical impossibility. Yet it would have had to occur multiple times for there to be a rich enough variance in RNA/DNA. That abiogenesis is not sound was attested to by Darwin in The Origin of Species, although only printed in the 6th edition.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Please quote where Darwin stated this.

 

[plindboe]

plindboe,

Surely you jest. There's a big difference between being the target of, and responding in kind to, 5 relentless posters who do nothing but name call or twist words and refuse to deal with substance.

You attacked in your very first post on the board. If you approach others with such an aggressive attitude, what else can you expect? Perhaps if you tried understanding people instead of attacking and judging them you might get somewhere.

Smile to the world and the world will smile back. The opposite applies as well.

Peter

 

[Baggins]

Look at what Darwin actually said. Or if you want, forget Darwin and look at logic, which should be a new concept to you. If all you have is a supposition based on DNA and common characteristics, one of two things is true
a) they're related, through evolution
b) physical life forms share common physical characteristics

Is that a flame I see before me?

A good case for "a" would be found if there were evidence of clear transition, the gradual type that the evolution needs for its premise to be supported. The lack of these shows "b."

There isn't a lack of species that show gradual evolution. The lack is in your knowledge of them.

This is going to be another argument from ignorance isn't it? Instead actually looking at something like Jurassic/Cretaceous Foraminiferid evolution or Creataceous Ammonite evolution, you have already decided that these things don't exist.

This is just the worst sort of hubris, it really annoys me that you make concrete statements about things you obviously haven't researched and know nothing about.

Considering that you are wrong in your very first point the rest of the post is not worth dealing with.

We have a plethora of fossils that are supposedly from a very early stage, an equally large plethora of those supposedly from the latter stage, and absolutely nothing in between.

I am a trained palaeontologist ( Masters in Micropalaeontology from UCL ) and this is rubbish. It doesn't even make any sense.

Based on the amounts available of the other two categories it's safe to conclude that they're two different species, not one that gradually transitioned into another, with all steps of that transition, seemingly hundreds of generations, having disappeared (yet leaving behind the earlier fossils).

You also appaer to be completely in the dark about punctuated equilibrium.

Abiogenesis is also a physical impossibility

Unevidenced assertion that is contradicted by vast amounts of scientific research

.

Yet it would have had to occur multiple times for there to be a rich enough variance in RNA/DNA.

Unevidenced ascertion that doesn't strike me as having any merit at all. Why wouldn't it occur many times?


That abiogenesis is not sound was attested to by Darwin in The Origin of Species, although only printed in the 6th edition.

Also explain how RNA and DNA came together to form cellular life if they came about independently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rna_world

Darwin saw that a Creator must have created the universe as well and would have agreed with the positions I outlined in the first column, none of which had to do with evolution (which was only dealt with in the second column). I doubt he would believe in evolution now given the lack of real transitional fossils (as logic would define them).

Darwin would have laughed in your face. Actually he wouldn't he was a gentleman and gentlemen don't do that.

But he would have wanted to. As a man who spent decades assembling evidence to support his case I don't think he'd have had much time for someones whose arguments are, at base, unevidenced assertions based on ignorance.

Good day

 

[Molal]

Mod Hat

Do not use flaming or baiting tags.

As mods, we can see who adds tags.....

Be warned
​

 

[RealityCheck]

Twelve pages later and he's still not listening?