Now here is where things become laughable . . . if indeed Sutherland's experiment is right, it means phosphate did NOT EXIST for millions of years while the basic components of RNA were already formed and lying around waiting patiently for phosphates?

Considering the FACT that phosphate must have been an initial part of the primordial soup, Sutherland's experiment is a very strong argument for why RNA would not spontaneously form in nature and still does not today. Because as long as phosphate was a starting material, you had no RNA!

BABE!:

Mr. David.

At quote 1: Me saying they have a knowledge of the bible doesn't mean I'm saying they understand it the way christians do. And trust me, for anyone to know that the bible is full of contradiction, means they know something about it. A good number of christians still argue that there are no contradictions in the bible. Or rather, they say contradictions are "continuation" of stories. I'm like "Really?"

BABE!:

At quote 2: Errrrm, I do understand that the biblical stories are to tell lessons. If I can't comprehend that, then why am I a christian Damnit?! (lol).
However, it's still inevitable that Mr. samson, an overrated character, is very much one of many overrated fellows in the bible.

BABE!:

At quote 3: Who's talking about "why he made the choices"? Of course he chose them for a reason. Duh! I'm talking about why he decided to choose those chracters. Why them? Why not someone else? And those are fo[i]o[/i]lish questions sef. Read the couple of sentences I typed after the ones you highlighted, to get a meaningful comprehension of my point.

mantraa:

"A phosphate, an inorganic chemical, is a salt of phosphoric acid. In organic chemistry, a phosphate, or organophosphate, is an ester of phosphoric acid. Organic phosphates are important in biochemistry and biogeochemistry or ecology. Inorganic phosphates are mined to obtain phosphorus for use in agriculture and industry. At elevated temperatures in the solid state, phosphates can condense to form pyrophosphates."

In other words, phosphate is a naturally occuring inorganic chemical.
I admit that the chances of these chemical all combining together in the right combinations to form the first self replicating molecule were probably a billion to one. But when you have had a billion years between the formation of the earth and the first evidence of life on it the chances comes down to one. If all the inorganic elements are there on a planet with thousands of different and changing environments, its just a matter of time,  In our case about a billion years.

Now if you dont believe that the earth is billions of years old then i can understand why you would have a problem with this scenario. All the evidence points to the earth being around 4.5 billion years old with organic life beginning around 3.5 billion years ago.

mantraa:

Now[b] if you dont believe that the earth is billions of years old then i can understand why you would have a problem with this scenario[/b]. All the evidence points to the earth being around 4.5 billion years old with organic life beginning around 3.5 billion years ago.

davidylan:

you are too easily carried away by verbose words. You are too easily swayed by copy-paste jobs from other sites. When i read from the atheists i don't see "how deep they have searched" or a "level of sound mind", i only see a lot of obfuscation, ignorance cloaked with highfalutin jargon (that impresses the ignorant) and insults of course.

omo_to_dun:

It is always interesting and heartwarming to see someone who insults others simply because they have differing opinions. H[b]ow you came to the conclusion that HAIRCRAFT is impressionable simply because he stated his opinion is both miraculous and breathtaking.[/b] I wish I had your discerning mind. The irony of your post is daunting: the obfuscation and ignorance that you see in others' posts are deeply buried in yours. Take that peck out of your putative genius eyes before condemning others.

dare2think:

Sorry, but are you aware of the contradiction in that post ^^? Displaying the very points you are accusing others of.

davidylan:

Its a two-way street. no contradictions here. The default mindset of the atheist is that the religious person is ignorant, in delusion and half as smart because he/she is not busy on talkorigins copying faulty claims for evolution. That much was evident from the very first 10 posts here.

You said phosphorus is a naturally occuring inorganic chemical  . . . so are you suggesting it wasnt occurring at one point to allow the other RNA components to form then appeared to complete the RNA cycle? Even you know that is statistically impossible but of course you have to beat your drum for your atheistic faith. I understand.

mantraa:

It is not statistically impossible for abiogenisis to happen if it is a billion to one chance with a billion years to happen. Once abiogenisis has occurred then natural selection can occur. With the imperfections of self replication and a constantly changing environment only those that survive successfully will continue to evolve. It has taken 3.5 billion years for life to evolve to what we have today, although 99% of the life on this planet was unsuccessful and became extinct.

davidylan:

Its a two-way street. no contradictions here. The default mindset of the atheist is that the religious person is ignorant, in delusion and half as smart because he/she is not busy on talkorigins copying faulty claims for evolution. That much was evident from the very first 10 posts here.

Based on your own statistics . . . that is bull. If it takes 1 billion years to generate the smallest RNA strand then it took a mere 3 times that to move from a protobiont to a fully functional multicellular organism capable of logic and complex reasoning?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy If you believe the above then i have an island to sell you.

davidylan:

Its a two-way street. no contradictions here. The default mindset of the atheist is that the religious person is ignorant, in delusion and half as smart because he/she is not busy on talkorigins copying faulty claims for evolution. That much was evident from the very first 10 posts here.

mantraa:

Abiogenisis from inorganic chemicals and evolution via a process of natural selection are two completely different processes.

mazaje:

Firstly evolution has nothing to do with atheism, a lot of the proponent of evolution are Christians. . .Secondly enough of your crazy talk about scientific knowledge because you are no scientist, your contribution to science and the scientific process is WHAT?. . .

mazaje:

If you know what you are talking about you won't be crying here on nairaland telling us about your scientific knowledge, we will be reading about your scientific findings and  theories you have proposed. When will this fooool go and challenge the evolutionist and win himself a Nobel peace prize?. . .If you TRULY know what you are talking about as you claim why aren't you challenging the evolutionist with your points in an open forum, where are your papers and scientific findings or theories that disprove evolution? Why haven't you presented it to scientist? If you truly know what you are saying you should have already done that by now. . .Do that and win a Nobel peace price. . . . Evolution according to scientist is a theory that has yet to be disproved. . . . .If you have what it takes and truly know your onions as you claim then you should be out with papers that disprove evolution already instead of crying here on nairaland all the time. . .Thought you claim to be a scientist? Why is your mouth not where your money is?. . . .

BABE!:

Quote 1: It's like you think you have superpowers! Can you read minds? What made you think I am impressed by atheists (what I read on here)? I know and I'm freinds with Atheists in real life, so I know what I'm talking about. Correct Atheists are "hard-core." Not all of them dig up random stuffs. Internet or no Internet, they are very controversial in nature. They like questioning theists. The more they do that, the more they "dig out contradictons", and the more find out about the bible.  Like I said, that doesn't mean they have a full/any understanding of it though.

BABE!:

At your question: They are contradictions. However, I do read past all of those.

BABE!:

Quote 2: Refer to what you quoted. Quit repeating yourself.
Btw, I think there's a form of misunderstanding here. I seriously hope that you know the meaning of overrated -? Good.

BABE!:

Quote 3: I'm not sure you read my comment either. Quit haif-quoting me,and endevour to[b] digest the point I'm trying to make.[/b] Again, read beyond what you highlighted.
If you can't still understand, then never mind.

davidylan:

your opinion is solely yours. I work on a daily basis with RNA, building genome-wide classification models for select immune-reactive chemicals . . . and what do you do by the way?
I am cited on pubmed . . . perhaps you have another criteria for who is a scientist and who is not but of course you can bleat all you want

Because id[i]i[/i]ot . . . my field is in immunology not evolution. This is a frankly stup[i]i[/i]d comment.

Enigma:

In my experience, most evangelical atheists are sciolists, usually repeating the same stock arguments, challenging the same particular set of passages from the Bible, often parroting old arguments some of which the original proponents have accepted to be obsolete or superseded by superior arguments etc etc.  

omo_to_dun:

Mr davidylan, if it is not asking too much, may I have a link to your publications and/or research?

mazaje:

Good, you claim to work on a daily basis on RNA , you made some objections to it and the role it plays in evolution, where is your scientific paper challenging the assertions made by evolutionist?. . . .Am a soft ware engineer by the way. . . .

mazaje:

What then have you been blabbing about since you foooool?. . . .Now that I have challenged you to put your mouth where your money is you are foolishly running away and claiming your field is immunology. . . .

Makes no sense. Are you trying to claim that evolution through natural selection is way much faster than abiogenesis?

mantraa:

Yes. That is the case, It took about a billion years for the earth to cool enough and the severe meteorite bombardments to subside enough and for the right conditions to develop to allow abiogenisis to occur. Once self replicating molecules had formed they would have spread and evolved relatively fast compared to inorganic molecules.

This planet is in orbit around a massive nuclear fusion reactor energy source. This favoured the first organic molecules that mutated chemicals that could react to this energy through photosynthisis and develop into more complicated organisms whilst releasing oxygen into the atmosphere as a waste product.  After this an exponential growth in organic life occured.

davidylan:

. . .
Only on a mutually agreed assurance that my anonymity will remain intact.

Enigma:

David, I will recommend please don't grant the request. I'm sorry to the requester and I mean no disrespect ----- but David should only do it if he accepts that his anonymity is indeed likely to be compromised ultimately.

BABE!:

The more they do that, the more they "dig out contradictons", and the more find out about the bible.  Like I said, that doesn't mean they have a full/any understanding of it though.

davidylan:

3. finding out about the bible is different from having a thorough understanding of it.

davidylan:

immunology has nothing to do with evolution. It however doesnt preclude anyone from having an opinion on a broad range of science.
Working with RNA however gives me the opportunity to read some of the tripe written here in terms of its role in abiogenesis and laugh my belly off.

This statement lacks any form of intelligence. So because i major in immunology i should have absolutely no idea what evolution is about and thus have no idea whether i believe it or not? Its like saying a math teacher should have no idea what work, energy or power is since he is not a physics major. Really that makes sense to you?

omo_to_dun:

Your recommendation is good. But how can anyone take anything said here seriously if folks cannot back up their statements? If you are a scientist, I'd think you'd be proud to share your work, or is my thinking problematic?