62
edits
Changes
→"Self-Replicating" Chemicals: new section
To do this, we need to make sure that we understand exactly what the naturalist views are. The more we know about their views, the easier it will be to find counter-evidence and counter-arguments. Also, the more clearly that we present the naturalist views, the easier it will be to show visitors to this site the fallacies and other problems with naturalist views.
To do this, we need to make sure that we understand exactly what the naturalist views are. The more we know about their views, the easier it will be to find counter-evidence and counter-arguments. Also, the more clearly that we present the naturalist views, the easier it will be to show visitors to this site the fallacies and other problems with naturalist views.
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:35, 31 December 2008 (EST)
[[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:35, 31 December 2008 (EST)
== "Self-Replicating" Chemicals ==
Evolutionists CLAIM to have used reverse engineered RNA sequences to create what they call "life 2.0"<ref>http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html</ref>
They've basically isolated some cell components, put them in a nutrient bath and claimed they're now self replicating. This bit of Frankenstein science is in reality little different than keeping an organ alive for a few months in a nutrient bath, but some people are claiming this proves spontaneous generation theories of life.<ref>http://skepchick.org/skepticsguide/index.php/topic,17125.0/topicseen.html</ref>
I think Conservapedia can nip this in the bud the way it did with the claims of bacteria evolving. A good article addressing the flawed science behind the claims would be a great way to at the very least let people read some truth instead of the humanist drivel being spewed by the leftist media. I lack the science know how to do this myself.
<references/>