Since abiogenesis has recently been proved, what will Creationists say now?

You've proven nothing, except a reluctance to post your source. I've been searching for about an hour for your reference to "THE experiment" and I can't figure out WHICH one you mean....http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=artificia...

But it doesn't matter, does it? Because Spiritually speaking, Edward J just ripped your guts out and made an open display of your faulty logic. This is one of the things I love about Yahoo...Every once in awhile some sophomore thinks they are the first to realize something revolutionary, until a fifth grader pokes holes in their logic. It's comical.

This is an excerpt from the article: "The headline of the article is somewhat misleading, as these scientists have not actually created artificial life, but modified existing life. The DNA was modeled after a known bacteria, and a living cell "hosted" the synthetic DNA. All the materials for life were not created, but borrowed or duplicated." http://www.examiner.com/x-38195-Atlanta-Creationis...

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,

. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,

. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,

. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,

. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}

. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}

. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./

. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./

. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./

. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/

. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}

. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../

. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../

. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”

. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\

. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__

,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,

. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..

░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█▀▀ ░░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█

░█▀▀ ░█▀▀ ░█ ░█ ░░░░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█

░▀▀▀ ░▀ ░░░▀ ░▀▀▀ ░░▀ ░░░▀░▀ ░▀ ░▀▀▀

John the Baptist

If abiogenesis was able to produce RNA, that proves nothing but that the first requisite needed for living matter had been met. There are other, more challenging hurdles.

The great minds of these scientists are being wasted on such foolish speculation. Why reinvent the wheel? They have a duty to humankind, rather than their own egos that wish to abolish spirit. They also have an insanity that might not be curable. He who breaks a thing to discover its nature is not wise.

Maybe in their next life?

There's quite a difference between synthesizing RNA and the process of abiogensis, which includes the linking of protein chains that contain *information*, the building of a living organism around the RNA, the development of discrete nanostructures that facilitate the replication of the RNA, the ingestion of energy, the elimination of waste, etc. etc. etc.

I think you're a bit confused when you say that abiogenesis has been proven. It hasn't. It's not even close.

The best molecular biologists believe that it took about half of our evolutionary time just to develop the first living cell. The remaining 50% of evolution would have taken from the first cell to homo sapiens. That you think this is a simple or a short-lived process only confirms that you're misreading something someplace.

It's always delightfully ironic when the scientifically illiterate jump on the bandwagon on these types of questions, ridiculing those ignorant Creationists -- and yet they don't understand the science themselves! Personally, I'd rather investigate and understand something rather than accept it as gospel truth and ridicule others for not understanding it. Seems sort of foolish to me.

EDIT: Of course, my answer is pure silliness compared to that of Edward J. He cuts right to the chase. Nice job!

When was this?

Source?

EDIT:

"Do your own research Wesley. Scientists publish their work. Find their methods and you can reproduce the experiment for yourself."

So...you got nothing then.

Also, out of curiosity, have you honestly "reproduce[d] the experiment for yourself?" Is that what's really expected in order to believe the study? That you recreate it yourself?

You are right, though. Scientists do SHARE their work.

It's just a shame you won't show the same courtesy.

"You're 100% correct, Bob, I mistyped. A natural process for the primordial synthesis of RNA has been discovered."

And the study doesn't even claim what you claim it claims anyway?

How does one accidentally "mistype" the word "abiogenesis" for the phrase "a natural process for the primordial synthesis of RNA?"

Let's leave intellectual dishonesty in the realm of the creationists, OK?

"Before you decide that, read up on the experiment?"

Happily!

Care to share it with us? Just a little link to a peer-reviewed journal? The name of the lead scientist on the team? The institution where it came from? The date of publication? Anything? Anything I can use to narrow the search and find the same study you are referring to since you won't just link it directly?

Is "do your own research" how science spreads itself now?

"Hey! I learned a new thing!"

"That's cool! Tell it to me."

"No. Go figure our what I'm referring to and study it on your own."

Now we're spreading the knowledge!

...or not.

Scientists synthesizing is intelligent design not natural processes happening by themselves. You do realize that don't you? I didn't mean to embarrass you but you are misrepresenting the truthhttp://www.examiner.com/x-38195-Atlanta-Creationis... http://www.examiner.com/x-38195-Atlanta-Creationis... The problem is you are so willing to believe it "just happened" that you seem to miss the point that it didn't "just happen". You have still yet to account for the origin of the information they just happened to borrow from another cell. This has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Edit: The clue should have been scientists "create" life as opposed to self organisation proven. When you can show us how DNA self organised by itself you will have something. Edit to epicboy: There is a difference between evolution and the theory of abiogenesis.

See, now, there's an important fact you haven't considered. The people you're trying to debate with are very narrow-minded and ignorant of most types of science. It's pretty useless trying to talk about anything with them. These are descendants of the same people who jailed Galileo for talking about the heliocentric theory. They are very stubborn and will cling to their indoctrinated beliefs until the day they die.

Edit: Ricky D. is a Class A example of an idiot.

The experiments were the work of Satan. Anyway, it doesn't prove anything. And what's RNA got to do with anything anyway - what about the soul? Did they make a soul? No, obviously not. I define my soul as something that contains guilt and confusion. They didn't make that, and only God can save me!

"Since abiogenesis has recently been proved, what will Creationists say now?"

One of their spin doctors will make an obscure irrelevant observation and it will be discovered as pure boolshit but fundie won't listen to the fact it's been debunked and continue to parade even another LIE as 'truth'.

[[ edit ]]

avocado: Ricky D. is a Class A example of an idiot.

I thought he was being sarcastic and gave him a TU.

He was serious? What a penis.

Like... wow... man... ... just wow.

~

They'll say "abiogenesis??? genesis is a book in the bible!! that proves it's validity!!!"

Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."