RNA Synthesis under Early Earth Conditions.

It would appear we are a step closer to understanding how life originated on this planet.

Christopher Pearsoll wrote:

It would appear we are a step closer to understanding how life originated on this planet.

Yep. With the evolving RNA story not much else is needed.

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep. With the evolving RNA story not much else is needed.

Well, I'm sure the fall-back position will be "yeah, well, how did non-living chemicals evolve into self-replicating ... er, um, non-living chemicals that can, um,... evolve and,... uh,... self replicate?"

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I'm sure the fall-back position will be "yeah, well, how did non-living chemicals evolve into self-replicating ... er, um, non-living chemicals that can, um,... evolve and,... uh,... self replicate?"

Oh I'm certain of it. Even when we make new life forms (like glow in the dark puppies isn't new) they will simply claim that it proves the requirement of a designer.

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh I'm certain of it. Even when we make new life forms (like glow in the dark puppies isn't new) they will simply claim that it proves the requirement of a designer.

Yeah. How quickly the spin begins when they're caught between a rock and a hard place.

For years one of their favorite arguments has been "it can't have happened because no one has done it in the lab yet. It has to be repeatable and observable".

Now it will be "it can't be happened because it was done in a lab under repeatable and observable conditions which just "proves' that it needs an intelligence to do it".

The sad part is that the "creationists" will all believe these lies that they keep telling themselves, even when they have to constantly change their lies to keep up with the science.

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah. How quickly the spin begins when they're caught between a rock and a hard place.
For years one of their favorite arguments has been "it can't have happened because no one has done it in the lab yet. It has to be repeatable and observable".
Now it will be "it can't be happened because it was done in a lab under repeatable and observable conditions which just "proves' that it needs an intelligence to do it".
The sad part is that the "creationists" will all believe these lies that they keep telling themselves, even when they have to constantly change their lies to keep up with the science.

I think my favorite thus far has been the creationist who claimed that when science found aliens it would be proof of the biblical god. I started speaking in tongues.

I read in an article "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory"

The Reference was to RNA,(which is actually a chemical compound and not alive in and of itself)

I say that baking a brick does not build a house.

John Sutherland, one of the main researchers for the project stated

"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides”

Thereby admitting they guided the experiment, just as a baker mixes cake batter for a cake.
Evolutionists tried to run with this by saying the molecule "spontaneously formed" which is a fraudulent assertion. It was created,by scientists yes, but created nonetheless

Everyone is a creationist, it's just some people believe in naturalistic creationism (abiogenesis) while others (such as myself) believe in Supernatural creationism.

ultimately Life can only come from life, you could have all the chemicals but without life you can't have life, period.

Mathias wrote:

ultimately Life can only come from life, you could have all the chemicals but without life you can't have life, period.

What do you base this assertion on?

Mathias wrote:

Evolutionists tried to run with this by saying the molecule "spontaneously formed" which is a fraudulent assertion.

Where did you find this tid-bit? I'e read both articles and don't where this assertion is made.

the Law of Biogenesis, life can only give rise to life, that was shown 100 years ago by a NUMBER of experiments, sorry folks but life is more than chemical

I saw the assertion on a couple of responders sites

Mathias wrote:

I read in an article "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory"
The Reference was to RNA,(which is actually a chemical compound and not alive in and of itself)
I say that baking a brick does not build a house.
John Sutherland, one of the main researchers for the project stated
"By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides”
Thereby admitting they guided the experiment, just as a baker mixes cake batter for a cake.
Evolutionists tried to run with this by saying the molecule "spontaneously formed" which is a fraudulent assertion. It was created,by scientists yes, but created nonetheless
Everyone is a creationist, it's just some people believe in naturalistic creationism (abiogenesis) while others (such as myself) believe in Supernatural creationism.
ultimately Life can only come from life, you could have all the chemicals but without life you can't have life, period.

Actually, they stopped premaking the ribose and bases and just let the reactions run. Thereofore LESS interaction yielded BETTER results.

Mathias wrote:

the Law of Biogenesis, life can only give rise to life, that was shown 100 years ago by a NUMBER of experiments, sorry folks but life is more than chemical

Again with the "Law" !!?!? Look, pasteur proving mice don't come from wheat or that maggots don't just appear on rotting meat does not a refute of abiogenesis make, capiche?
-
Life comes from nonlife......ok......what is god again?

But, how does this explain the origin of the universe and the meaning of life? Just saving the idiots some time by throwing it out there.

I should also add that life is more than magic and invisible fairy farts.

Hey Mike anybody remotely familiar with biology can see they (evolutionists) are grasping at straws, it is not difficult to synthesize chemicals,it's done in forensics all the time, making life with all its detail,order, and complexity is a very far different matter, and NATURE in and of itself cannot create information, information is an indesputable proof of intelligence

Mathias wrote:

Everyone is a creationist, it's just some people believe in naturalistic creationism (abiogenesis) while others (such as myself) believe in Supernatural creationism.

No...'Natural Creationism' as you put it, would be more accurately represented as a 'reaction'- not a 'creation'.

Noodly, God is the Life/Energy Source/by which all things actually living come from, when God created Adam He was transferring energy/life to Adam, not creating new energy, what he created was not the energy itself, but the living being

You may ask "where did God come from" and my answer is that He has been since before life in the universe began,the energy behind all things that now exist

A reaction is still creation

Mathias wrote:

Hey Mike anybody remotely familiar with biology can see they (evolutionists) are grasping at straws...[/QUOTE

And yet those extremely familiar with biology disagree with you.

[QUOTE who="Mathias"]...NAT URE in and of itself cannot create information, information is an indesputable proof of intelligence

Depends on how you're defining 'information'. I'm sure we have differing viewpoints on this.