"RNA World hypothesis" - another desperate Atheist myth and speculation

when told that enzymes are needed to form proteins, and living molecules, the die-hard Atheist and Darwinist desperately claims that "RNA" acted as enzymes, and uh "Chech" proved that. Ah, actually, no, it didn't. Speculation (with big problems that get ignored) is NOT "science." See the facts here....

Category:

Education

Tags:

• RNA
• World
• Hypothesis
• Abiogenesis
• Atheism
• Darwinism
• Creation
• Theism

[pilgrimpater]

I am not sure why you would claim that the RNA Hypothesis has anything whatsoever to do with Atheism. Atheism makes no comment on science. If the hypothesis can be proved then it doesn't prove there is no god or gods yet if it is refuted then it does not prove god or gods. And certainly whether true or not it doesn't disprove the subsequent speciation by natural selection i.e. evolution.

[sweetmikser]

@pilgrimpater "Atheism makes no comment on science"? LOL? You're sick, deluded, demented, dishonest, and not worth my time, kid. Atheism and Atheists have been making jerk-wad comments on "science" for DECADES AND DECADES now. Dicky Dawkins is just one example of that. With circular reasoning that no outside Intelligence or Interference was needed or happened, and that we all got here either by accident or "nature done it" somehow all on its own. (A form of Pantheism.)

[Researchrules]

Religious research is about probability, scientific research is about certainty.

[sweetmikser]

@TheLizardPeople ? not sure why you wrote "crickets", when I commented back to you yesterday. With three comments (which didn't really scratch the surface of other things I know and problems with Darwinist assumptions with RNA World) the different ribosomes needed, etc. But I commented three times to your stuff. And if anyone gave "crickets" it was you, kid.

[TheLizardPeople]

@sweetmikser >>>>sound of crickets<<<<<<

[sweetmikser]

@TheLizardPeople (3rd) Yet beyond the immediate foreground of RNA World excitement lies a disquieting landscape of CHEMICAL PROBLEMS, largely ignored in the recent literature on ribozyme engineering. As researchers broaden their focus to include the chemical plausibility of the RNA World itself, however, these difficulties cannot be avoided. lol....though "lizard people" love to neurotically avoid them. Chech (and all other experiments) always involves INTELLIGENT INTERVENTION.

[sweetmikser]

@TheLizardPeople (2nd) ayayaya, your straw-men are silly. That's the formula. So? But did you see the whole video (it's not even long or exhaustive, but made the points well enough). There's no plausible way that stuff (which is complex in itself, no matter how much the Atheist lizard and ape-monkey people love to idiotically deny or minimize that). ScienceDaily is NOT some Creationist out-fit, kiddo. THEY (Darwinist-bent people too) said those elements "would not be there floating in the ooze"

[sweetmikser]

@TheLizardPeople no cutie. It's NOT "disprove me and I block you". Because honest challenges and scientific discussions or sincere disagreements are ok. I only block rude obnoxious and disrespectful biscuit heads (especially lately, now that I'm busy with other things too, and don't have time or patience for the wrangling). I told you that three weeks ago on the "cell" video, if you remember. And you notice I never blocked you. Also, I'm NOT a "sock" for "mykoolaid". Not sure why you think that