There aint much

 

that gets me any more riled up

than somebody taking advantage 

of someone else's lack of knowledge

in a particular subject area

to promote a knowingly false agenda

presented as truth.

(They are 

ideologues, 

pushing

an agenda

not scientist.)

"That’s a guess, based on what we know about the evolution of complex life on Earth. Put simply, it took the best part of 4 billion years here to go from cell to civilisation..."

(Thats a statement he is fond of making BTW,

It ignores two facts:

1) Every cell that has ever existed 

split from another cell.

2) "The information" in the cell, had to have gotten there by means outside of the known laws of physics.)

(Why do you think they don't ever wanna talk about it?)

"These stars- the high mass ones among them- went unstable in their later years- they collapsed and then exploded- scattering their enriched guts across the galaxy- guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself."

(Except the information needed to make it all work fucknuts. And even the information isnt enough, as Missler points out in his analogy, the information in the cell? Thats just the sheet music for the members of the orchestra (the individual parts of the cell as it were, each with their own function.) Something outside of it has to direct the process.

(Be the conductor)

Life comes from life.

Brains come from brains.

Intellect comes from things 

that already have it.

This is all that anyone 

who has ever lived 

has ever witnessed.

Im old enough to remember 

when science used to be based 

on observation.

THSES TWO 

AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHERS

ARE DELIBERATELY LEAVING OUT

CRITICAL PARTS OF THE STORY

THEY DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT.

THEY ARE PUSHING THEIR 

KNOWINGLY FALSE

FAITH-BASED 

BELIEF SYSTEM

 (RELIGION) 

ON YOU.

AND BECAUSE IT DISCREDITS GOD?

HUMANITY JUST SOPS IT UP 

LIKE GRAVY WITH A BISCUIT.

If you ever get the chance?

At a panel discussion,

or a call in show,

whatever,

ask these guys 

a simple yes of no question,

and make sure its framed

as yes or no:

"DO HIGHLY COMPLEX, 

LENGTHY,

SEQUENTIAL CODES 

CREATE THEMSELVES?"

Yes or no?

When they say:

"Of course not."

Ask them where 

their genetic code came from 

then and just leave the building...

hang up...etc...

Ones a particle physicist

ones a cosmologist.

THE BIOLOGIST

KNOW HOW HARD

IT IS

TO CREATE LIFE

BECAUSE THEY CANT DO IT.

"Disparate reaction conditions in the multi- step syntheses (conditions are in bold text):

Step 1) Ribose + cyanamide / 0.2 M sodium carbonate (pH ~10), 55° C -> RAO

Step 2) RAO + cyanoacetylene / hydrosulfide in aqueous formamide, UV light -> Intermediates A

Step 3) Intermediates A / phosphate, anhydrous formamide, heat -> alpha & beta- ribopyrimidines (pyrimidine ribonucleosides completed)

Step 4) Intermediates A + 8- mercaptoadenine / dry state in magnesium chloride, 150° C -> Intermediates B

Step 5) Intermediates B / bisulfate in phosphate (pH 7), 60° C or sulfite in phosphate (pH 8-10), heat, UV light -> Intermediates C

Step 6) Intermediates C/nitrous acid (pH 4) -> adenine and inosine products (purine ribo- and deoxyribonucleosides completed)"

(and thats just to get 

to how RNA

"could have"

happened

 btw)

CLOWNS...