Afterlife?

You dont need to discuss an alternative sex life with me. Ill let you engage in whatever rows yer boat without insult.

I once again challenge you to point out a single error of fact or logic in my argument. All of it is from mainstream biology science which you laughably claim to represent here on a2k.

You dont have to accept my conclusion, but your post is a lie about my argument.

you focus on one teeny aspect. You dont consider the earths age, the extinction times, evolution v environment, ancestral traits, evolution within historical times and its "design evidence'. Everything Darwin published is aminstream also. There are a number of areas that need more understanding by the general public.

You hve still denied that you hve no idea about lifes origins and what you know as evidence for heritability at the dawn of life.

All the molecules within Dna are components of aminos , riboses, proteins and all derive from a very few 3d components including the bases in nucleic acid structures.
Did your "Bar code" occur as a start up indespensible unit?

You ignore thoudnds of data points and desperately hang on to just one or two xNA and RNA/DNA.

I gave you about 3 papers to read on the modelling going on at Stoney Brook and other reerch institutions. Ill bet you just blew em off and will continue with your one trick assertions

Yes. As explained in my argument, which you are loath to address. What the hell do you think I've been saying.

Before your dear Darwin had anything to work with, Design was there.

No Ive addressed it, Ive asked whether the soup was designed by the bar code? Or did yer bar code merely address the bookkeeping?? In all cases the bar code DOES NOT precede the product.

You call that addressing it? Try removing the 'bar code' from any cell and see how well it works. That only works with red blood cells, and they dont reproduce.

When did you go total Lamarkian? Or is it malarkian..

my point about your own "bar code" reference was that, if your analogy was even close to correct, every soup can would be unique, NNNND, youve purposely faile to address what you know about the origib of life on this planet ANNNND why are you so fraid of molecular chem??

My argument WAS molecular biology/chemistry. You are the one who won't touch it. Im guessing you didn't recognize it.

bullshit--You dont know enough Molecular biology or organic chem to have a discussion with a HS science club. Stop makin believe you know what the hell youre talking about. Anyone herein whose talked to exhaustion re the chemical evidence of lifes beginnings wasnt you/

Instead of just making a vague claim that he doesn't know anything, maybe you could point out places where his claims are in error.

If that ("BS") is the best you can offer against my argument, then i bid you goodbye and best of luck in your universe where everything can and will happen without effort or thought.

blame it on your inability to comprehend the many options of the origin of life.

your "arguments" need evidence to even begin formulating a theory, whereas science has maybe 5 hypotheses ,all with some evidence and at least 2 with overwhelming evidence, AND it all depends on prebiotic chemistry, energy fields still in action on earth and TIME.

you pop in and comment baselessly. Ive given him and others whove read my past data on this issue and I get annoyed at how most of you just deny by ignoring my past posted references.

His argument worries down to one basic religious based opinion, and a few other baseless pieces of evidence (that RNA and DNA are the foundations of creation when evidence is fairly clear that these two nucleic acids didnt exist till much later in lifes path) (Ive posted several examples of this from the scientific literature and all hes done is dismiss and ignore in hispaasive aggressive style)

He is the one who brings a peashooter to a gunfight.

The only thing that really matters is that life was created by the ever evolving eternal being, who is all that exists and in who, all exist. Exactly how He, 'The Living One' created the supposedly physical lifeforms will be revealed in time, but I very much doubt that it will be in your lifetime.

You should write ad copy to sell Lincoln SUV's.
WIthout evidence you say all this. At least Leadfoot relies on the "Life is too complex to have arisen without an Intelligent Designer" (Now if he only knew a way to test that assertion).

You guys rely solely on silly catch phrases rather than hard data. You know it?

Oh, but i do. I can even make predictions based on my evidence and reasons for believing biological life required a designer. For example, i predict we will not find any past or present life on Mars or anywhere else within range of our instruments.

Again, raw complexity is not the basis of my argument but i have to ask, is there any level of complexity you would not accept as having a non intelligent source? I mean, that really is silly if you actually believe that. The only way I can even imagine that is if you accept it on blind faith.

It is you who bring a pea-shooter to a gun fight young fellow, You nor any, in the many scientific fields of endeavour can prove how life began.

But you cannot deny that the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end has evolved to become this universal body, and all that exists within this universe that the eternal has become. All things came into existence through the Eternal, by the Eternal, and for the Eternal.

Romans 1: 18; God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known. God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! They know God, but they do not give him the honour that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they are wise, but they are fools; etc.

The Eternal is made manifest in the visible universe.

In the end, it all comes down to two opposing schools of thought. Some believe that matter is a quality of consciousness, and some believe that consciousness is a quality of matter. One seems more likely to me than the other.

An excerpt from the link below. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like ‘A GREAT THOUGHT’ than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

https://deghys.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/nothing-is-solid-everything-is-energy-scientists-explain-the-world-of-quantum-physics/

I totally agree, but scientists dont go around making up bullshit and creating new bumper stickers trying to convince others that we do know without a doubt---thats your territory.
ONLY difference is that science is investigating the several opportunities and means by which llife began. You guys just sit around quote mining and making up stories about how there was a chif cook in the kitchen and theres plenty of evidence for us to see. You and I have totally different views of what constitutes EVIDENCE, even Darwin went in with an idea that he would be able to reconstitute some facts that are contained within Genesis. What happened to Charles? He totally droppe religions and ven thoughts of a God. (Just like most of us in the sciences)