[_ Old Earth _] Creationist vs evolutionist, whos the fool?

[rmills]

Speciation = the evolution of a biological species

Aaaaaaaand this, boys and girls, is what is known as a straw man. Can you say straw man??

Evolutionists have a habit of referring to theory as fact and scientifically observed fact as "straw man". I cannot help you and your insatiable need to find the quickest and most convenient answers to plain English statements. You must know Paul A. Lucas. He is good at this “straw man†statement as well.

But you have successfully achieved step number one in E/TE/C debates, which is of course to discredit the poster as a groundless idiot with statements like “straw manâ€Â.

Speciation is macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is change at the species level or above.

And that folks is what we refer to as a… what?

Why is there a difference between Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution? Why does the Creationist impose these alternate definitions and terminologies? Because a change within a single species is one thing, “molecules to man†is another. If you say that I am the only human on earth that spots a distinct difference between the two ideologies, there is a big problem.

 

[Asimov]

Speciation = the evolution of a biological species

Macroevolution = evolution at the species level or above. It's the same thing.

Evolutionists have a habit of referring to theory as fact and scientifically observed fact as "straw man". I cannot help you and your insatiable need to find the quickest and most convenient answers to plain English statements. You must know Paul A. Lucas. He is good at this “straw man†statement as well.

Paul Lucas is a great man. I have discussed with him on many occasions. And yes, you do use strawmen. As evolution is a fact and a theory, I don't see what you're talking about.

Speciation, adaptation; these are all part of evolution.[/quote]

But you have successfully achieved step number one in E/TE/C debates, which is of course to discredit the poster as a groundless idiot with statements like “straw manâ€Â.

I don't debate with TE's, I have nothing to debate with them about. I discredit you for what you are.

And that folks is what we refer to as a… what?

a step in evolution!

Why is there a difference between Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution? Why does the Creationist impose these alternate definitions and terminologies? Because a change within a single species is one thing, “molecules to man†is another. If you say that I am the only human on earth that spots a distinct difference between the two ideologies, there is a big problem.

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. They impose these alternate definitions, because they think they there is some magical barrier.

"molecules to man" is another freakin strawman!! No molecules have ever turned into a man. We are comprised of molecules. In a very indirect way, we did come from molecules. This happened over billions of years. The distinct difference in micro and macro evolution is time, nothing else.

 

[rmills]

I have been in way too many forums where folks feel the need to discredit a poster because of syntax, grammar, miss-quotes, beliefs, and the like, using terms such as "straw man" which is effectivly saying "your an idiot". If intellectual superiority were the name of the game here, then this would be an inappropriate thread of posts. This thread was started with a valid point and useful subject matter, but the first reply is one of self imposed intellectual superiority, and for what purpose?

As is typically the case, ones education usually comes into question, followed by a statement of intellectual superiority that boasts about the 37 years of biased education the superior has, and usually followed by a list of initials, titles, and abbreviations that represent the intellectual strength that qualifies the superior to post slander, and further discredit anything anyone has to say because the superior hate being bothered with the IQ of a 25 watt light bulb. Boring.

I have read literally hundreds of posts here that are outright arrogance. You may ask if I am participating in the same intellectual superiority and slanderous arrogance as the posters that I speak of, and my reply is quite simply NO! I am stating observed fact which is a practice that the intellectually superior here should clearly understand.

In fairness, there are posters here that are polite, despite their list of accreditations and these people will always gain respect despite their beliefs and opinions. This applies to all E/TE/C. I have possibly knocked myself out of the list of polite posters as the topic of "Biology Text Books" infuriates me, but I intend no malice to individuals.

The Tuatha'an,

I have seen you conduct well formulated arguments. For this, I applaud you, but pulling the "straw man" card is a total blow out.

You are smart, and you can see that descent with modification is valid, you can see that changes within individual species over time factoring environments, medical research and developments, and technological advancements is valid, but not everyone agrees that we are all descendants of a mud puddle struck by lightning. So once again, if the fly does not turn into a bat, what is the problem? If science uses genetics to prove Macro Evolution, why are we genetically closer to a mouse than a monkey?

And back to the subject, why is this critical line of questioning not imposed on "biology textbooks" that still show pictures of 8 identical fetuses that turn into 8 different animals?

 

[cubedbee]

And you are a christians,right?
If so,then you know you shouldn't call other people
a fool. I let God do that,not myself.[/b]

Please provide me the verse that says I shouldn't somebody a fool? Or is that just another thing that you've made up in your own head that you think is Biblical truth?

 

[cubedbee]

But Mr. Fly never presented an increase in complexity, Mr. Fly never presented more than an astounding ability to prove common sense, Mr. Fly never spontaneously grew a sonar system, Mr. Fly never even became Mr. Bat even after our Eureka awe inspiring genetic manipulations on Mr. Fly time and time again.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Straw_man

The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than your opponents actually offer.

3. Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position.


This is precisely what you have done. The ToE does not predict the things you are mocking for not happening. A fruitfly turning into a bat would be definitive evidence that the ToE is in fact false and that a new theory had to be set up. 'Straw man' is a totally accurate description of what you are doing.

 

[Guest]

And you are a christians,right?
If so,then you know you shouldn't call other people
a fool. I let God do that,not myself.[/b]

Please provide me the verse that says I shouldn't somebody a fool? Or is that just another thing that you've made up in your own head that you think is Biblical truth?

:o AAAAh Ha',I knew it all along! You really don't read the bible
do ya'?

 

[rmills]

But Mr. Fly never presented an increase in complexity, Mr. Fly never presented more than an astounding ability to prove common sense, Mr. Fly never spontaneously grew a sonar system, Mr. Fly never even became Mr. Bat even after our Eureka awe inspiring genetic manipulations on Mr. Fly time and time again.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Straw_man

The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than your opponents actually offer.

3. Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position.


This is precisely what you have done. The ToE does not predict the things you are mocking for not happening. A fruitfly turning into a bat would be definitive evidence that the ToE is in fact false and that a new theory had to be set up. 'Straw man' is a totally accurate description of what you are doing.

SyntaxVorlon wrote:
Speciation, geniation(probably not the right word), and further differentiation taxonomy wise. Oh please, come at me with a sorites argument, I dare you.
Go on, google it first.

rmills wrote:
I'm sorry, did I miss something? When did Micro Evolution become invalid? Speciation does not prove Macro Evolution. Speciation proves Speciation. Let there be no mistake, I cannot deny environmental adaptation, as Mr. Fly tends proves this! But Mr. Fly never presented an increase in complexity, Mr. Fly never presented more than an astounding ability to prove common sense, Mr. Fly never spontaneously grew a sonar system, Mr. Fly never even became Mr. Bat even after our Eureka awe inspiring genetic manipulations on Mr. Fly time and time again. Mendel’s laws have only been refined, showing common sense time and time again; breeding shuffles genes, theoretical bounded variations still holds more water than Macro Evolution. Last I checked, a long haired cat mates with a short haired cat and creates a variety of hair length kittens. Last I checked, aliens had not landed yet so again…

What next?

Straw man? Regardless of what the fly may turn into, evolution would be correct if the complexity increases, but alas the fly has not. Straw man?

Straw Man arguments are in this case scientifically observed facts, but the evolutionist likes to come up with a Evolutionary buzz word to discredit the poster, and they actually think it works. I played this game with bigger evolution giants than Syntax, Tuatha'an, or yourself. Tuatha'an knows of whom I speak. I presented volumes of evidence and volumes of questions which were all answered with "straw man" followed by a long list of reasons why I am stupid, pointless and further undereducated to even breath the same air of such giants. This is EXACTLY what I and many others have come to expect from evolutionists. Not answers, but rather a big back door named "straw man".

:roll: This is getting old and I have only just started here. It really looked like this forum was promising but folks like you seem to want to degrade for a living so maybe you can find another constructive job or not bother to explain "straw man" over and over rather than hit the issue.

 

[Guest]

8-) They won't explain science either.

 

[cubedbee]

Straw man? Regardless of what the fly may turn into, evolution would be correct if the complexity increases, but alas the fly has not. Straw man?

Show me one post by one evolutionist on this board that claims that only speciation that results in increasing complexity is evolution. You can't find such a post, because nobody has ever made the assertion. You, and you alone, have come up with this fake argument to attack. That is a straw man.

If you want to debate an evolutionist, then ask them what they believe, and refute what they say. Do not tell us what evolutionists supposedly believe and then refute that.

 

[rmills]

Organic Evolution, aka Macro Evolution is a process of naturally occurring beneficial increases in complexity, thus allowing for a fly to turn into something other than a fly. Organic Evolution implies that spontaneous generation occurred at some point in the billions of years evolutionists say this rock has been here. Scientific observation shows quite clearly that life comes only from life.

Biogenesis definition #2 - the production of living organisms from other living organisms

Evolution clearly contradicts the Law of Biogenesis as evolution proposes that life came from lifelessness.

Am I aware of the fact that your definition differs? Absolutely. But is my assertion or evaluation of evolutions claims wrong in this post thus far?

Speciation is defined as the evolution of a species. Once again, my definition differs because evolution equates to increases in complexity, as well as spontaneous generation. Speciation is nothing more than Micro Evolution or variations within a single species based on environmental factors such as temperature and pesticides for our fly friend. Through the process of natural selection, we see a fly ensure survival of future generations of flies by taking the generational blow of the current pesticide so that immunity can be built before the next pesticide, but we do not see the spontaneous generation of 4 more legs or big teeth to chew up dead things with. We do not see the fly turn into something else.

What evolutionists refer to as observed evolution is in fact the refined Mendel’s law in action, and is in fact Environmental Adaptation rather than beneficial increases in complexity through mutational trial and error that BTW has never, never been observed.

 

[Barbarian]

If science uses genetics to prove Macro Evolution, why are we genetically closer to a mouse than a monkey?

It's not. Where did you get that idea?

Here's a site where you can see the relationships between rodents, lagomorphs (rabbits, etc.) and primates, based on genetic comparisons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/familytree/ ... ndex.shtml

 

[Asimov]

Organic Evolution, aka Macro Evolution is a process of naturally occurring beneficial increases in complexity, thus allowing for a fly to turn into something other than a fly. Organic Evolution implies that spontaneous generation occurred at some point in the billions of years evolutionists say this rock has been here. Scientific observation shows quite clearly that life comes only from life.

Biogenesis definition #2 - the production of living organisms from other living organisms

Evolution clearly contradicts the Law of Biogenesis as evolution proposes that life came from lifelessness.

Am I aware of the fact that your definition differs? Absolutely. But is my assertion or evaluation of evolutions claims wrong in this post thus far?

Yes, your assertions and evaluations of evolution is wrong. "Organic Evolution" does not have anything to do with abiogenesis, or "life from nonlife". Life can come from non-life, as life is comprised of non-life. Nobody talks about spontaneous generation anymore, because it was debunked. Abiogenesis is different.

Speciation is defined as the evolution of a species. Once again, my definition differs because evolution equates to increases in complexity, as well as spontaneous generation. Speciation is nothing more than Micro Evolution or variations within a single species based on environmental factors such as temperature and pesticides for our fly friend. Through the process of natural selection, we see a fly ensure survival of future generations of flies by taking the generational blow of the current pesticide so that immunity can be built before the next pesticide, but we do not see the spontaneous generation of 4 more legs or big teeth to chew up dead things with. We do not see the fly turn into something else.

What evolutionists refer to as observed evolution is in fact the refined Mendel’s law in action, and is in fact Environmental Adaptation rather than beneficial increases in complexity through mutational trial and error that BTW has never, never been observed.

In no way does any part of evolution imply increase in complexity. So yes, your arguments are straw men.

 

[rmills]

... Life can come from non-life, as life is comprised of non-life. Nobody talks about spontaneous generation anymore, because it was debunked. Abiogenesis is different.

Straw man. In order for Organic Evolution to happen, or in order for life from mud puddle to happen, life must come from non-life. What you are saying is houses come from trees, therefore trees are houses. Stick all the elements off the chart together in a pot and what exactly will happen? Charge it with the magical lightning bolt and I will be glad to watch, from a distance that is. In fact, take any order of elements you want in any measure you want and stick them in a pot, charge it with whatever and lets see a fly pop out. ;-)

In no way does any part of evolution imply increase in complexity. So yes, your arguments are straw men.

Straw man. If we originate from a mud puddle or whatever pot of goodies you suspect and in whatever sequence of events you decide, how can evolution happen without spontaneous generation? How does life come from mud puddle or whatever pot of goodies you suspect in whatever sequence of events you choose without spontaneous generation?

spontaneous - happening or arising without apparent external cause
+
generation - a coming into being
=
happening or arising without apparent external cause and coming into being

Synopsis: How could life have evolved from simple chemicals? During the 1920’s and 30’s, Alexander Oparin, a Russian scientist, formulated a detailed theory on how this might have occurred. It was called “Chemical Evolution.†This theory incorporated random chemical processes and Natural Selection to explain the origin of the first life. Oparin’s hypothesis is, perhaps, best evaluated by considering the intricate construction of protein molecules the building blocks of living organisms. Could amino acids, floating in a primordial ocean, have arranged themselves into proteins through purely random interactions?

And after that, how do we explain billions of years of mutation after mutation defying the odds of environmental extinction hoping that one will be beneficial and heridetary, and eventually grow into a heart, blood, lungs, liver, nerves, eyes, nose, mouth, taste buds, fingers, fingernails, hair, teeth, snot, and so on…? Then we talk about the plants, then the other mammals, the fish, the birds, the flys...

BTW, if they all started as protein molecules, they most certainly did increase in complexity, and did so at such a staggering rate that it truly would have taken billions and billions of years, maybe even trillions.

 

[Asimov]

Straw man. In order for Organic Evolution to happen, or in order for life from mud puddle to happen, life must come from non-life. What you are saying is houses come from trees, therefore trees are houses. Stick all the elements off the chart together in a pot and what exactly will happen? Charge it with the magical lightning bolt and I will be glad to watch, from a distance that is. In fact, take any order of elements you want in any measure you want and stick them in a pot, charge it with whatever and lets see a fly pop out.

You love just trouncing out that straw man argument whenever someone tells you exactly what spontaneous generation is, or what Abiogenesis is. You abuse the definitions of everything!!

"Organic Evolution" does not have anything to do with life coming from non life. Evolution assumes life already exists, and then goes from there. Spontaneous Generation was the belief that flies came from rotting meat and such. That is not what Abiogenesis is. It's comprised of many theories, involving chemistry.

What you just said is a straw man. A complex organism such as a fly would not simply pop out of primordial soup anymore than a human would. It starts with protocells 3.5 billion years ago. These bacterias slowly evolve over billions of years into what we see today. This is a slow process.

Straw man. If we originate from a mud puddle or whatever pot of goodies you suspect and in whatever sequence of events you decide, how can evolution happen without spontaneous generation? How does life come from mud puddle or whatever pot of goodies you suspect in whatever sequence of events you choose without spontaneous generation?

Because evolution does not require organisms to spontaneously generate out of mud puddles! Abiogenesis is a different theory, using chemistry, not biology. Evolution happens in populations of organisms, as soon as you have a population of living organisms who change over time, you have evolution occurring.

[quote:7fab9] Synopsis: How could life have evolved from simple chemicals? During the 1920’s and 30’s, Alexander Oparin, a Russian scientist, formulated a detailed theory on how this might have occurred. It was called “Chemical Evolution.†This theory incorporated random chemical processes and Natural Selection to explain the origin of the first life. Oparin’s hypothesis is, perhaps, best evaluated by considering the intricate construction of protein molecules the building blocks of living organisms. Could amino acids, floating in a primordial ocean, have arranged themselves into proteins through purely random interactions?

This was done during the 1920's and 30's...why are you quoting a source that is that old? First, it's assumed that Chemistry is random, which it is not. Amino acids do not arrange themselves randomly.

And after that, how do we explain billions of years of mutation after mutation defying the odds of environmental extinction hoping that one will be beneficial and heridetary, and eventually grow into a heart, blood, lungs, liver, nerves, eyes, nose, mouth, taste buds, fingers, fingernails, hair, teeth, snot, and so on…? Then we talk about the plants, then the other mammals, the fish, the birds, the flys...

BTW, if they all started as protein molecules, they most certainly did increase in complexity, and did so at such a staggering rate that it truly would have taken billions and billions of years, maybe even trillions.

[/quote:7fab9]

You are once again setting up a false idea of what evolution is. You assume that evolution has a goal, you assume that evolution strives to create things like liver, heart, blood, lungs. You assume that they were originally created for that purpose. You assume that the amount of time isn't necessary.

You make a lot of assumptions, most of which are based on incorrect information about what evolution is.

 

[rmills]

If science uses genetics to prove Macro Evolution, why are we genetically closer to a mouse than a monkey?

It's not. Where did you get that idea?

Here's a site where you can see the relationships between rodents, lagomorphs (rabbits, etc.) and primates, based on genetic comparisons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/familytree/ ... ndex.shtml

I dont know who made the preaty picture buth humans and mice share 99 % of their 30,000 genes. Chimpanzees and people share about 98.7 % of their genes. The picture dont seem to show that. Kinda like the pictures from "text books"?

 

[rmills]

[quote="The Tuatha'an":b6eb7]
Straw man. In order for Organic Evolution to happen, or in order for life from mud puddle to happen, life must come from non-life. What you are saying is houses come from trees, therefore trees are houses. Stick all the elements off the chart together in a pot and what exactly will happen? Charge it with the magical lightning bolt and I will be glad to watch, from a distance that is. In fact, take any order of elements you want in any measure you want and stick them in a pot, charge it with whatever and lets see a fly pop out.

You love just trouncing out that straw man argument whenever someone tells you exactly what spontaneous generation is, or what Abiogenesis is. You abuse the definitions of everything!!

"Organic Evolution" does not have anything to do with life coming from non life. Evolution assumes life already exists, and then goes from there. Spontaneous Generation was the belief that flies came from rotting meat and such. That is not what Abiogenesis is. It's comprised of many theories, involving chemistry.

What you just said is a straw man. A complex organism such as a fly would not simply pop out of primordial soup anymore than a human would. It starts with protocells 3.5 billion years ago. These bacterias slowly evolve over billions of years into what we see today. This is a slow process.

Straw man. If we originate from a mud puddle or whatever pot of goodies you suspect and in whatever sequence of events you decide, how can evolution happen without spontaneous generation? How does life come from mud puddle or whatever pot of goodies you suspect in whatever sequence of events you choose without spontaneous generation?

Because evolution does not require organisms to spontaneously generate out of mud puddles! Abiogenesis is a different theory, using chemistry, not biology. Evolution happens in populations of organisms, as soon as you have a population of living organisms who change over time, you have evolution occurring.

[quote:b6eb7] Synopsis: How could life have evolved from simple chemicals? During the 1920’s and 30’s, Alexander Oparin, a Russian scientist, formulated a detailed theory on how this might have occurred. It was called “Chemical Evolution.†This theory incorporated random chemical processes and Natural Selection to explain the origin of the first life. Oparin’s hypothesis is, perhaps, best evaluated by considering the intricate construction of protein molecules the building blocks of living organisms. Could amino acids, floating in a primordial ocean, have arranged themselves into proteins through purely random interactions?

This was done during the 1920's and 30's...why are you quoting a source that is that old? First, it's assumed that Chemistry is random, which it is not. Amino acids do not arrange themselves randomly.

And after that, how do we explain billions of years of mutation after mutation defying the odds of environmental extinction hoping that one will be beneficial and heridetary, and eventually grow into a heart, blood, lungs, liver, nerves, eyes, nose, mouth, taste buds, fingers, fingernails, hair, teeth, snot, and so on…? Then we talk about the plants, then the other mammals, the fish, the birds, the flys...

BTW, if they all started as protein molecules, they most certainly did increase in complexity, and did so at such a staggering rate that it truly would have taken billions and billions of years, maybe even trillions.

You are once again setting up a false idea of what evolution is. You assume that evolution has a goal, you assume that evolution strives to create things like liver, heart, blood, lungs. You assume that they were originally created for that purpose. You assume that the amount of time isn't necessary.

You make a lot of assumptions, most of which are based on incorrect information about what evolution is.[/quote:b6eb7][/quote:b6eb7]

You did not answer my questions. So lets start over. If evolution is true, increases in complexity had to take place? If evolution is true, life starts in the mud puddle, not the garden of eden? Again, if evolution is true, increases in complexity had to take place? True or False, protein molecules from non-life are the start of the evolutionary process? True or False, evolution could not occour without protein molecules from non-life?

And your final statement brings to light an interesting question, does evolution or natural selection or abiogenesis or whatever you wish to lable it have the goal to better its subject? Or kill it off? Or what? Are we getting better because of evolution? Are mice? Are flys? What do you blame hearts, lungs, blood, fingers on?

 

[keebs]

If evolution is true, increases in complexity had to take place?

False. Evolution is not a theory of progress, it is a theory of change.

If evolution is true, life starts in the mud puddle, not the garden of eden?

False. Evolution is not a theory of origins, it is a theory that is only applicable after life has been created, be it by God or some natural process, such as abiogenesis.

True or False, protein molecules from non-life are the start of the evolutionary process?

False. You're referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. And besides that, it's still wrong. Modern non-Creator origin theories assume that RNA came first.

True or False, evolution could not occour without protein molecules from non-life?

False. Once again, you are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. And once again, modern origin theories (besides the ones with God) assume that RNA came before proteins.

As to the last statement, evolution does not have goals. It is not an intelligent, or un-intelligent being. Evolution is a process.

 

[Asimov]

If evolution is true, increases in complexity had to take place?

No, it does not have to take place.

If evolution is true, life starts in the mud puddle, not the garden of eden?

No, evolution does not say anything about how life originated.

Again, if evolution is true, increases in complexity had to take place?

No!

True or False, protein molecules from non-life are the start of the evolutionary process?

False! Evolution does not state that life began with protein molecules.

True or False, evolution could not occour without protein molecules from non-life?

False! Evolution does not recquire life to originate from non-life.

And your final statement brings to light an interesting question, does evolution or natural selection or abiogenesis or whatever you wish to lable it have the goal to better its subject? Or kill it off? Or what? Are we getting better because of evolution? Are mice? Are flys?

Natural Selection is a mechanism of evolution, abiogenesis is not a mechanism, or even a theory that is related with biology.

Evolution does not have a goal to better its subject, or kill it off. It is simply about a population of organisms changing over time. If that leads to being better suited to an environment, then yes they get better. If the environment changes, then are the organisms better? No. If an organism is not suited to it's environment, then it usually goes extinct, unless a mutation occurs which helps it survive. As environments tend to change, organisms tend to change, or they die. If an environment does not change, then the organism will not change drastically, because it is suited to it's environment.[/b]

What do you blame hearts, lungs, blood, fingers on?

Mutation, coupled with natural selection.

 

[rmills]

If evolution is true, increases in complexity had to take place?

False. Evolution is not a theory of progress, it is a theory of change.


[quote:a3ac0]If evolution is true, life starts in the mud puddle, not the garden of eden?

False. Evolution is not a theory of origins, it is a theory that is only applicable after life has been created, be it by God or some natural process, such as abiogenesis.

True or False, protein molecules from non-life are the start of the evolutionary process?

False. You're referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. And besides that, it's still wrong. Modern non-Creator origin theories assume that RNA came first.

True or False, evolution could not occour without protein molecules from non-life?

False. Once again, you are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. And once again, modern origin theories (besides the ones with God) assume that RNA came before proteins.

As to the last statement, evolution does not have goals. It is not an intelligent, or un-intelligent being. Evolution is a process.[/quote:a3ac0]

So maybe what we are saying here is that life from non-life is irrelevant, despite the fact that life from non-life had to happen in order to create the simplest building block. So it sounds to me like you are saying that there was always life, it just evolved. After all, evolution did not require something to start with, right?

In other words, stop playing games.

RNA. Hmmm. That’s new. DNA and RNA store info, both replicate, oh but viruses use RNA sometimes! RNA is simpler than DNA. Maybe they are more likely to pop out of the mud puddle? Hmmm. RNA still needs info to do anything, but for some reason, we are expected to believe that the lightning bolt did that as well? Maybe we should look into intelligent amperage? Hmmm. But that’s the problem with DNA too! Shucks. A, C, G, T, hmmm. What if A had a special attractant to G, then we would have a strand that looked like AGAGAGAGAGAGAG, kinda like NaClNaClNaClNaClNaCl, but ACGT seem to attract in what appears to be random patterns. Hmmm. Or are they?

Stop playing games.

 

[keebs]

So maybe what we are saying here is that life from non-life is irrelevant, despite the fact that life from non-life had to happen in order to create the simplest building block.

No, what I am saying is that a theory of life from non-life is irrelevant when dealing with evolution, because that is not evolution. Evolution makes no predictions of life from non-life. You are either confusing theories or are thinking of strawmen.

After all, evolution did not require something to start with, right?

All evolution needs is life. This life can created by a God, or it can come about from a natural process, it doesn't matter.

DNA and RNA store info, both replicate, oh but viruses use RNA sometimes!

DNA doesn' replicate. RNA replicates DNA.

RNA is simpler than DNA.

No, it's not.

RNA still needs info to do anything, but for some reason, we are expected to believe that the lightning bolt did that as well?

What info? RNA contains all of the info it needs.

What if A had a special attractant to G, then we would have a strand that looked like AGAGAGAGAGAGAG, kinda like NaClNaClNaClNaClNaCl, but ACGT seem to attract in what appears to be random patterns. Hmmm. Or are they?

Obviously they aren't random. A change in one gene could be the difference between being gay and being straight.

Stop playing games.

Haha you're the one playing games:

A, C, G, T, hmmm. What if A had a special attractant to G, then we would have a strand that looked like AGAGAGAGAGAGAG, kinda like NaClNaClNaClNaClNaCl, but ACGT seem to attract in what appears to be random patterns. Hmmm. Or are they?