CosmicJoghurt
New Member
Greetings.
I recently had a slight argument with an user on Youtube in the comments section of a video, regarding the origin of life. I'll just paste into here what we said and then comment:
Please note the weird engrish he uses... Don't be frightened...
He said: "ok so u want, to explain every other life form but not the, first, cell...there is some logic..Homochirality proves evolution can, never happen..but this is now, separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry, unknown to science than intelligence,,thats some faith..and nothing more than assumptions"
I told him that Evolution deals with what happens after the first life form arises, not before, so his point about evolutionists was wrong, and that for a reference to the origin of life he could google the Miller-urey experiment. Here's what he said:
"Abiogenesis and, evolution are very much connected...Tell an architect to build a skyscraper using no foundation, no, base.just have the building float in thin air..let me me know what they will tell you..and how and when this great feat of engineering can be done..you need life to start in order for it to evolve....its nothing more than stubborn logic by evolutionists"
"You have a energy information problem..lets say you have all necessary proteins DNA RNA.enzymes..the paradox is..In order, for digital code to be precise,and information to be processed correctly..you need the molecular machines,the factories inside the cell.assembling information..these systems are the very things..that live inside, the cell.they harness the energy..its an uphill? struggle.I dont think you understand..no natural process can achieve this."
"Even with all the Proteins, and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff, would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube."
"If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, and they still would have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and, amino acids that are outside of a cell."
"RNA has been copied using templates and, bases..and without digital information and DNA..this RNA world is going no where..you also still have the major problem of Homochirality..Inserting bases into molecules is not creating anything..its copying.. you..Please tell me the next step lets what you make next lets say you thousands of pairs, of RNA..You have ZERO molecular machines..for assembly instructions...RNA molecules floating around is life?..LOL"
"Miller failed Moron..he a Toxic mess of amino acids..that could not be used to make anything...to try to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build a the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle...and drug resistant bacteria ..use pre existing information..they, dont become any new form of bacteria...its still a bacteria cell..and, well removed from the drug..they are the same type of cell"
I know it's a mess, his sentences are confusing, but you get his point. I've been thinking about this issue. What I was going to answer was that any simple primitive form of a self-replicating molecular structure could eventually lead to actual life, but first, I need some info from you guys, because, of course, you know more about this subject than me...
What problems are there in his reasoning, or mine?
Cheers!
I recently had a slight argument with an user on Youtube in the comments section of a video, regarding the origin of life. I'll just paste into here what we said and then comment:
Please note the weird engrish he uses... Don't be frightened...
He said: "ok so u want, to explain every other life form but not the, first, cell...there is some logic..Homochirality proves evolution can, never happen..but this is now, separate from there lies..evolutionists would rather believe in some chemistry, unknown to science than intelligence,,thats some faith..and nothing more than assumptions"
I told him that Evolution deals with what happens after the first life form arises, not before, so his point about evolutionists was wrong, and that for a reference to the origin of life he could google the Miller-urey experiment. Here's what he said:
"Abiogenesis and, evolution are very much connected...Tell an architect to build a skyscraper using no foundation, no, base.just have the building float in thin air..let me me know what they will tell you..and how and when this great feat of engineering can be done..you need life to start in order for it to evolve....its nothing more than stubborn logic by evolutionists"
"You have a energy information problem..lets say you have all necessary proteins DNA RNA.enzymes..the paradox is..In order, for digital code to be precise,and information to be processed correctly..you need the molecular machines,the factories inside the cell.assembling information..these systems are the very things..that live inside, the cell.they harness the energy..its an uphill? struggle.I dont think you understand..no natural process can achieve this."
"Even with all the Proteins, and DNA and RNA ...What would you do with it??..from there you have zero molecular machines, zero assembly instructions...all this stuff, would just float away in some primordial soup and break down..and it would be the same thing in a test tube."
"If evolutionists had optically pure DNA, RNA, and amino acids, and they still would have nothing. In fact, the energy needed to form the bonds to make the macromolecules necessary for a cell, will destroy any DNA, RNA, and, amino acids that are outside of a cell."
"RNA has been copied using templates and, bases..and without digital information and DNA..this RNA world is going no where..you also still have the major problem of Homochirality..Inserting bases into molecules is not creating anything..its copying.. you..Please tell me the next step lets what you make next lets say you thousands of pairs, of RNA..You have ZERO molecular machines..for assembly instructions...RNA molecules floating around is life?..LOL"
"Miller failed Moron..he a Toxic mess of amino acids..that could not be used to make anything...to try to get amino acids to self assemble is impossible..there is no natural process.to make a cell evolve ..it would be easier to build a the space shuttle..blindfolded while riding a unicycle...and drug resistant bacteria ..use pre existing information..they, dont become any new form of bacteria...its still a bacteria cell..and, well removed from the drug..they are the same type of cell"
I know it's a mess, his sentences are confusing, but you get his point. I've been thinking about this issue. What I was going to answer was that any simple primitive form of a self-replicating molecular structure could eventually lead to actual life, but first, I need some info from you guys, because, of course, you know more about this subject than me...
What problems are there in his reasoning, or mine?
Cheers!