Aren't scientists rather arrogant and elitist in abiogenetic theories?

@Banana Breath,

There is no such thing as a prebiotic molecule, as only after a molecule turns into life, can it be said to be prebiotic.

Prebiotic molecules are just a folly of fools.

Water could be said to be a prebiotic molecule, if there were such a thing.

Next

0 Replies

@Banana Breath,

Yeah, recently a creationist here at A2K denied the existence of prebiotic molecules and went full-on strawman with the "warm pond" mischaracterization, as if that were the only working hypothosis. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@FBM,

Is water a prebiotic molecule?

Does it need to be created?

Sheesh

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Your wilful ignorance continues to amaze me.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

And that is not an answer. So if a chemical reaction created water, would water then be considered a prebiotic (nonsensical) molecule.

?

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

I was replying to your assertion that everything on Wikipedia is false.

Which is kind of sad because they had an item on storing binary code on DNA. Thanks to your great tip I can now dismiss it as completely false. Thanks.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

I did not say that everything on Wiki is false, I implied, that because anyone can post anything, and that others can edit that information. Now what you have is undependable information, that ends up being as much opinion as fact.

As for storing binary code on DNA, very few people actually have first hand information to post on this topic, and they are highly unlikely to be divulging patentable information...............

So Wiki, is just undependable.

2 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

I did not say that everything on Wiki is false, I implied, that because anyone can post anything, and that others can edit that information. Now what you have is undependable information, that ends up being as much opinion as fact.

As for storing binary code on DNA, very few people actually have first hand information to post on this topic, and they are highly unlikely to be divulging patentable information...............

So Wiki, is just undependable.

Not much difference between Wiki and pseudo scientists - both have unprovable theories.

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

You mean pseudo evolutionist, that claim organisms, with hundreds of thousands of lines of code, just forming in a warm pond, out of nothing.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

You mean pseudo evolutionist, that claim organisms, with hundreds of thousands of lines of code, just forming in a warm pond, out of nothing.

No, I mean the ever changing micro organisms that erupted from the sun and helped form the solar system

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

Excellent.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

DNA Thumbs drive wrote:

Excellent.

My theory is that the solar system erupted from the sun with one huge explosion, shot globs of gaseous materials millions of miles away, Some of the larger globs were joined with smaller globs by stringy gaseous globs and as they tumbled through space, the smaller glob rotated around the larger glob (like bolas) until they reached a point in space where the temperature was so cold the blobs solidified into balls and the the stringy gas that held them together parted.

Now that the balls had substance they were pulled back into an orbit around the sun, the smaller balls (moons) still rotating around the larger balls (planets).

Note: this explains why we only see one side of the moon. The reason the globs solidified into round balls is demonstrated by the way they make beebees and other steel balls - drop the shapeless steel blobs into cold water

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

True, there is much going on in the field of abiogenesis, but it is more like comedy, than research.

Sure, and rocket scientists know **** and climatologists lie to us etc. etc.

People who have no scientific training should know better than say what you say. A little respect is due for the brightest among us.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
True, there is much going on in the field of abiogenesis, but it is more like comedy, than research.

Sure, and rocket scientists know **** and climatologists lie to us etc. etc.

People who have no scientific training should know better than say what you say. A little respect is due for the brightest among us.

“No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should NEVER TRUST EXPERTS.” Lord Salisbury

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Again, abiogenesis, is comedy. That said, you are free to be a big fan of comedy, as you seem to be.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

I'm a big fan of science, in general, while I'm aware of its limits.

I'm NOT a big fan of guys with a small brain and a big mouth.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Abiogenesis, is not science, while it is true, that a great many evolutionist, want abiogenesis to be science, this just does not make it so. Creating a method, to store binary code, on DNA, this is a new direction of computer science......

Amen.

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10850325_10152882098761605_7646846989983485616_n-1.png

2 Replies

@FBM,

Copy and paste, takes about a three year olds intellect.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

dnetd wrote:

I did not say that everything on Wiki is false

Really? That's the way i read this, my emphasis

Quote:

That is the point, nothing on Wiki can have any merit, even if it was posted by a triple PhD, an idiot could change it, to whatever they chose. So why waste your time looking at nonsense?

Personally I find wikipedia several hundred factors more reliable Than you, because at least on Wikipedia, when an idiot writes something there's a chance some intelligence will edit it.

0 Replies

Aren't scientists rather arrogant and elitist in abiogenetic theories?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know