Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Not at all ... God can create life wherever he likes.

[qs=There is a reason why Crick brought up the notion of panspermia. When he realized what the structure of DNA is, there is no rational way to explain the evolution of such a molecule.[/qs] Crick would rather make a fool of himself by believing in the superstitious nonsense of panspermia than believe in a Creator. It never ceases to amaze how highly intelligent atheists can be so stupid when it comes to facing reality.

Kleinman:

---

I don't need to give that evidence when you give it yourself.

Tangle:

---

You're not a scientist at all are you? Unfortunately religous nutters like yourself generally lie about these things so please reference your source in the time-honoured way.

---

---

I do know how descent with modification and adaptation works which is the way to describe the evolution of drug resistance and you don't. And neither do biologists. If you think I'm wrong, post a paper (with an appropriate quote) which explains why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. You won't.

Kleinman:

---

Plausible alternative to what?

Tangle:

---

To life starting here - ie abiogenesis on Earth.

---

---

That is another dumb idea that biologists have. How old does that idea have to become before you realize how stupid it is?

Kleinman:

---

The Bible and God were here long before you arrived and will be here long after you return to dust

Tangle:

---

Oh do grow up.

---

---

Don't you think you will return to dust? Perhaps you think that the Bible and God will disappear when you die. And what evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?

Crick would rather make a fool of himself by believing in the superstitious nonsense of panspermia than believe in a Creator. It never ceases to amaze how highly intelligent atheists can be so stupid when it comes to facing reality.

Kleinman:

---

There is a reason why Crick brought up the notion of panspermia. When he realized what the structure of DNA is, there is no rational way to explain the evolution of such a molecule.

Dredge:

---

Crick would rather make a fool of himself by believing in the superstitious nonsense of panspermia than believe in a Creator. It never ceases to amaze how highly intelligent atheists can be so stupid when it comes to facing reality.

---

---

Once Crick saw the structure of DNA, he realized there was a logical problem with the belief system that is held by most biologists. He tried to address this problem with the notion of panspermia. It only puts more focus on the theoretical problems of abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution which depends on universal common descent which biologists try to present the theory.

Actually a hypothesis awaiting evidence. Actually, just chemistry. But again, we wait for evidence before claiming anything (or making shit up).

Dredge:

---

*qs=There is a reason why Crick brought up the notion of panspermia. When he realized what the structure of DNA is, there is no rational way to explain the evolution of such a molecule.*/qs* Crick would rather make a fool of himself by believing in the superstitious nonsense of panspermia than believe in a Creator. It never ceases to amaze how highly intelligent atheists can be so stupid when it comes to facing reality.

---

There is an edit button at the bottom of the post that allows you to correct a typo error or make other corrections to your post so that you don't have to make a new post with the correction.

Dredge:

---

Biology for space-cadets.

Tangle:

---

Actually a hypothesis awaiting evidence.

---

---

And

Dredge:

---

To get from "amino acids" to a living, reproducing organism you need to pull out two items from your atheist bag of tricks - delusion and superstition.

Tangle:

---

Actually, just chemistry. But again, we wait for evidence before claiming anything (or making shit up).

---

---

Who says that for atheists hope doesn't spring eternal?

Yes I know, thank you. My "edit" button used to work but now it doesn't, so to correct a typo I have to submit the whole post again.
.

​ The only "evidence" scientists will ever produce will be some bag-of-hot-air theory that proves nothing.Wake me up when scientists produce a viable organism from inanimate matter. Anything less than that is just superstitious pie-in-the-sky.

Dredge:

---

To get from "amino acids" to a living, reproducing organism you need to pull out two items from your atheist bag of tricks - delusion and superstition.

Tangle:

---

Actually, just chemistry. But again, we wait for evidence before claiming anything (or making shit up).

Dredge:

---

The only "evidence" scientists will ever produce will be some bag-of-hot-air theory that proves nothing.
​
Wake me up when scientists produce a viable organism from inanimate matter. Anything less than that is just superstitious pie-in-the-sky.

---

---

---

Who says that atheists and biologists don't have faith?

You're truly weird aren't you? We'll never get evidence for panspermia, whatever happened to form life on Earth happened billions of years ago and all evidence has long since gone.Atheist hope for nothing like this. Personally I'd love to see progress on abiogenesis and finding life on other planets but it's not something that crosses my mind anywhere but here or anymore than wondering about AI or what's for dinner.You're so stuck in your own hopes of religious afterlife fantasies you can't imagine anyone not doing the same. It's called projection.

Kleinman:

---

Who says that for atheists hope doesn't spring eternal?

Tangle:

---

You're truly weird aren't you? We'll never get evidence for panspermia, whatever happened to form life on Earth happened billions of years ago and all evidence has long since gone.​

---

---

Tangle evidence is that he hopes that the evidence once existed.

As I recall, Dredge kept abusing his edit privileges so they were suspended. That is why his Edit button does not work.Rather than resubmitting entire posts again (thus wasting even more bandwidth), do not submit a post until you have reviewed it. That is what the Preview button is for, as I have advised you previously.One can always tell a creationist. One just cannot tell him anything.A better alternative would be to write your posts in your favorite text editor, verify that you have corrected any typos, and then copy-and-paste it into the edit box. Basic computer skill that everybody knows ... except for creationists, I guess. You can always tell a creationist, ... .

Everyone in biology claims that, you fucking moron. Which has nothing to do with what you asked. Any remnant of a retroviral insertion is an ERV. Solo LTR's are what is left over after homologous recombination of a full length ERV. Solo LTR's are the result of mutations in full length ERVs. They do exist in many ERVs, you fucking moron. Most of them are altered, you fucking moron.How do we tell that both mice and humans have a cytochrome c gene? How do you think that works? The two gene sequences differ by quite a bit, so how can they tell these are the same gene? No, you fucking moron. I have never said that. As shown by genes shared by many different vertebrates, it's possible to identify homologous sequence even when the sequence differs. These are basic, basic concepts, and you can't seem to understand them. So how do you think the authors of the human genome paper were able to distinguish between LTRs from retroviruses and LTRs from retrotransposons? Wrong question. What are the LTR sequences?