nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 57:
Line 57: + + +
Talk:Origin of Life (view source)
Revision as of 14:43, December 30, 2008
, 14:43, December 30, 2008→Rebuttals of problems: I realised that, but you've missed my oblique point.
::: Actually, it's never been a problem. It's been known for about 6,000 years now that God created chickens, not eggs. As for Spiegelman's monster, what does some intelligently-designed replication solve when the organism gradually fades away? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Actually, it's never been a problem. It's been known for about 6,000 years now that God created chickens, not eggs. As for Spiegelman's monster, what does some intelligently-designed replication solve when the organism gradually fades away? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::: Yes, I realize that God created chickens 6,000 years ago. By putting "chicken or egg" in parentheses I was referencing where the article spoke of whether DNA or proteins came first. The current leading theory that naturalists (those who believe life began without God) have is RNA. The only problem I have with the article is that the stance that naturalists take is being misrepresented. Were their viewpoints to be represented, it would be much more effective when their arguments were taken down. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 09:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::: Yes, I realize that God created chickens 6,000 years ago. By putting "chicken or egg" in parentheses I was referencing where the article spoke of whether DNA or proteins came first. The current leading theory that naturalists (those who believe life began without God) have is RNA. The only problem I have with the article is that the stance that naturalists take is being misrepresented. Were their viewpoints to be represented, it would be much more effective when their arguments were taken down. [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 09:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::::: I realise that you were referring to that puzzle, but just as you were answering that it's "neither", I was also answering that, by obliquely pointing out that God created life fully-functioning, so there is no question as to which came first. The RNA hypothesis is really a case of grasping at straws, because of the implausibility of DNA or proteins, they go for the simpler RNA, but have the problem that RNA needs living things in order to reproduce, another so-called "chicken and egg" problem.
::::: How does the article misrepresent the naturalistic viewpoint?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 30 December 2008 (EST)
==Superfluous link==
==Superfluous link==