nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 64:
Line 64: + + + + +
Talk:Origin of Life (view source)
Revision as of 09:12, December 31, 2008
, 09:12, December 31, 2008→Rebuttals of problems: Life was involved, and other responses.
::::::Should we start this under a new header in the talk page? We have deviated somewhat from the original question.
::::::Should we start this under a new header in the talk page? We have deviated somewhat from the original question.
::::::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:17, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::::::[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:17, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: "''...in the naturalist 3.5 billion years ago earth, it was able to [reproduce] naturally.''": That's your ''faith'' talking; we don't have evidence of that (unless you forgot the word "view" after "naturalist" or something like that).
::::::: The Spiegleman Monster ''appears'' to have shown that RNA can reproduce without an existing living thing being involved, except that an existing living thing ''was'' involved: Spiegleman! You may think that to be a silly response, but my point is that Spiegleman provided special conditions that do not occur naturally, so it could not have occurred without him (or an equivalent) being involved, so cannot explain the origin of life.
::::::: As for not presenting the naturalistic view, you are correct, and that is a problem that many articles suffer from. Start another section if you want to discuss it further, or just directly edit the article. But please keep in mind that Conservapedia doesn't allow the naturalistic POV to be presented as fact (see my first comment in this post).
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:12, 31 December 2008 (EST)
==Superfluous link==
==Superfluous link==