# Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322 "2013-07-01T06:22:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/541 "2013-07-16T21:14:15Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > These ‘piece parts’ must already be some form of nucleic acid. The whole point of abiogenesis is the nucleic acid forming in the first place. If you could cite something please I would appreciate it, thanks. Individual strands of rna or dna are not considered to be living - viruses are basically dna in a shell. From my understanding of the experiment, they use existing dna to save time. Do you think it is impossible for someone to assemble at least a short stand of dna? I searched on dna synthesis hoping to find an experiment, but it seems to be easy enough so that there are ads! [Here](http://www.trilinkbiotech.com/products/oligo/?gclid=CJXW8_n2tLgCFeR_QgodMlsAaQ) is one example - real biologists, please tell me if this counts. But no one claims these guys are creating life. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/542 "2013-07-16T21:24:33Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That experiment was interesting in that it showed some amino acids can be formed from simpler materials somewhat spontaneously. It certainly isn’t a model of how life actually started, not even back when it was done. > Sure - _Macbeth_. It is easy to write of fulfilled prophecies after the fact. We have the big unfulfilled one about Jesus returning. We have a fulfilled misreading of a prophecy of the virgin birth. And we have the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies unless you twist them out of recognition. The messiah was supposed to become king. Jesus fought the law, and the law won. Sorry, Im not following what you said about ‘a fulfilled misreading of a prophecy of the virgin birth’, and the twisting of the Messianic prophecies. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm all the prophecies, exactly. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give the genealogies showing his legal right and bloodline to be king. For example, if you think a passage like Isaiah 53 applies to anyone else, please share your thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/543 "2013-07-16T21:35:59Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Well at least I’m glad you don’t believe the earth is only some 10.000 years old. I believe the Bible to be literally true. I simply quoted the site stating those fossils did not form following a global catastrophe. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/544 "2013-07-16T21:36:48Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > ‘THE LIMESTONE IS YOUNG, GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING > Much of the outcropping limestone in the northern Yucatan is part of the Carrillo Puerto Formation of Miocene-Pliocene age. The Miocene and Pliocene are often considered as having occurred from 23.8 to 1.8 million years ago. Along much of the Yucatan coastline you find Quaternary deposits 1.8 million years old and younger.’ I have no idea what this has to do with mountains, but if you multiply 23.8 million years by .25 inches a year (a figure I assume you pulled out of thin air), you will get something like a mountain. Multiply a quarter of an inch per year by 23.8 million years and see what you get. > [@](#): > > So you see this is not thought of as the global catastrophic event that supposedly wiped out all the dinosaurs. From the same cite: “One reason the Chicxulub impact is of such interest is that it is thought to be responsible for the vast extinction of species that took place 65 million years ago.” > [@reef\_shark](#): > > I simply quoted the site stating those fossils did not form following a global catastrophe. Ibid, two sentences later: “The Chicxulub impact changed the Earth’s weather conditions so drastically that all the dinosaurs died off. This enabled mammals to assume the dinosaur’s dominant position.” I have no idea what you think you’re saying here. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/545 "2013-07-16T21:37:07Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > These ‘piece parts’ must already be some form of nucleic acid. The whole point of abiogenesis is the nucleic acid forming in the first place. If you could cite something please I would appreciate it, thanks. Is this what you mean? [First synthetic bacterium.](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html?_r=0) What many Christians, esp. fundamentalists have a problem with is seeing how inanimate matter becomes animate. And when you look at the complexity of even fairly “simple” life, it can be a bit overwhelming. But you have to remember that even the “simple” life forms have been evolving for billions of years - unless of course you don’t subscribe to that timeline and/or evolution. But if you don’t have a problem there, the general consensus I would say from my general reading is that most molecular biologists, if they had to guess, would probably favor the first replicating molecules as some type of RNA. I don’t recall the reasons off hand but I can try to dig something up for you if you’re interested. The problem is that you also needed a membrane to protect the replicating material, a source of new material and a host of other issues that I just don’t recall off hand. But when you start looking at it from the molecular level, step by step, yes, it’s still mind boggling, but not all that mysterious. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/546 "2013-07-16T21:52:13Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I believe there are thousands of accounts of people drinking the blood of other people. Actually a lot of the early accounts of vampires and strigoi (sp?) didn’t have blood drinking. They had people coming back to life - typically to curse the living. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > The sun was not necessary for the first day, given Gen 1:3. > > The moon reflects light, allowing us to see at night, correct? > [Moonlight - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight) > > Science is knowledge gained from observation. I dont believe that ‘hypotheses’ of evolution should be tax-funded in public schools, without allowing for an alternative viewpoint such as creation. So the Sun isn’t necessary for water (I guess it doesn’t freeze?)? How did the plants get nutrients via photosynthesis? Also, why is the Sun necessary **now**? As to the Moon, the Bible says it’s a light, not hat it reflects light. It’s supposed to rule over the night. Further in later portions of the Bible it’s supposed to change color while the Sun darkens, if memory serves. So there are two examples on the first page of he Bible being inaccurate. > [@hotflungwok](#): > > Do you think the meteor impacted everywhere? How would a meteor hitting the earth prevent fossils? I’m not sure if Reef Shark rejects all of modern science or not, so I’m not sure if he’s a YEC or not, but if he is, meteor impacts would be yet another tool to show conclusively that the earth is older than 6-10k years. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcoFbtMtp2A](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcoFbtMtp2A) > -Please see the references Hovind gives, thanks. I will try to get more later if you dont mind. You referenced Hovind? Wow. Even other creationist organizations know to distance themselves from him. In fact it’s odd that you later quote from AiG since they disavow Hovinds silly ideas. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > Sorry, Im not following what you said about ‘a fulfilled misreading of a prophecy of the virgin birth’, and the twisting of the Messianic prophecies. > > The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm all the prophecies, exactly. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give the genealogies showing his legal right and bloodline to be king. For example, if you think a passage like Isaiah 53 applies to anyone else, please share your thoughts. Um… If you believe the NT, then Jesus doesn’t come from David’s bloodline since both Matt and Luke draw from Joseph’s lineage (using different names of course)…, > [@reef\_shark](#): > > I believe the Bible to be literally true. Which is why you dismiss reason and evidence and why you haven’t bothered to actually read any scientific material, instead you get your info from Hovind… ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/547 "2013-07-16T21:54:47Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > If you want, I can post a lot of other scripture regarding endtimes. Thats the point of prophecy, it hasnt happened yet. Then what’s the point of even citing it? It has nothing whatsoever to do with accurate prophesies, as you claimed. And you still haven’t refuted the first prophecy I mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/548 "2013-07-16T21:56:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And here is your unfulfilled prophesy: > > “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28) > > “Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. > > But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. > > Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34) > > “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30) > > “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. Then He told them a parable: Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.“ (Luke 21:27-32) > > Didn’t happen, did it? They waited…and they died. The ‘some’ being referred to are Peter, James, and John, who witnessed the transfiguration. That event immediately follows this in Luke 9 and Mark 9 also. 2 Peter 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/549 "2013-07-16T21:56:05Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Thanks for the cite, I truly appreciate that. Here is just one point I want to make: > > ‘THE LIMESTONE IS YOUNG, GEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING > Much of the outcropping limestone in the northern Yucatan is part of the Carrillo Puerto Formation of Miocene-Pliocene age. The Miocene and Pliocene are often considered as having occurred from 23.8 to 1.8 million years ago. Along much of the Yucatan coastline you find Quaternary deposits 1.8 million years old and younger.’ > > So you see this is not thought of as the global catastrophic event that supposedly wiped out all the dinosaurs. Why exactly are you making this point? You asked for fossils near a meteor impact crater. You got them. What does limestone being young have anything to do with it? ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/550 "2013-07-16T21:59:17Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Then what’s the point of even citing it? It has nothing whatsoever to do with accurate prophesies, as you claimed. > > And you still haven’t refuted the first prophecy I mentioned. I cannot refute an endtimes prophecy. I offered to post some other endtimes prophecies which you can compare to, or you can look them up yourself. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/551 "2013-07-16T22:01:27Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Why exactly are you making this point? You asked for fossils near a meteor impact crater. You got them. What does limestone being young have anything to do with it? This was in reference to a global flood that would leave billions of fossils. My original point was that a globally catastrophic meteor impact would not leave fossils. However, that was an interesting cite, fwiw. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/552 "2013-07-16T22:28:23Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > I cannot refute an endtimes prophecy. I offered to post some other endtimes prophecies which you can compare to, or you can look them up yourself. Again, why bother? You said that your book was full of accurate prophecies, with no inaccurate ones. And yet, you’ve been shown very inaccurate prophesies, and you’re talking about how the apocalyptic ones can’t be refuted. This means they aren’t accurate. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/553 "2013-07-16T22:33:32Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > This was in reference to a global flood that would leave billions of fossils. My original point was that a globally catastrophic meteor impact would not leave fossils. However, that was an interesting cite, fwiw. A global flood would be expected to leave billions of fossils at the lowest points in the terrain, and no where else. Everything would sink down, and would have to be covered by silt or rocks or whatever in order to even have a chance of becoming fossils. Anything that didn’t sink down wouldn’t become a fossil on a mountain, it would be fish food. A cursory glance at the fossil record would show that this is wrong. How many other tired long disproved creationist talking points are we going to see? The only things Hovind is an expert at is tax evasion and making shit up. He has no evidence whatsoever, an easy indicator of a non-authority. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/554 "2013-07-16T22:37:08Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > No no no, reef. > You view states that the waters rose and fell, leaving behind the clams. > That is a different from the clams dying and\* then\* having the land rise over a loooooong period of time , until they are high above sea level. You are correct, my apologies. It is inferred that the flood caused radical changes to the earth: 2 Peter 3:6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished : From the mention of the ‘fountains of the deep’, we know there was tectonic activity. The Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, Appalachians, Andes, etc all are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of the aforementioned marine fossils. The Indian subcontinent collided with Asia, turning the huge amounts of sediment into mountains. This guy explains it better, and i can find more on the ‘hydroplate theory’ if you wish. > **[Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?](https://www.icr.org/article/520/)** > > Few doctrines in Scripture are as clearly taught as the global nature of the Great Flood in Noah's day. Genesis clearly teaches that "the waters . . . increased greatly . . . and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:18-20). > > Through the centuries,... ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/555 "2013-07-16T22:38:31Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > A global flood would be expected to leave billions of fossils at the lowest points in the terrain, and no where else. Everything would sink down, and would have to be covered by silt or rocks or whatever in order to even have a chance of becoming fossils. Anything that didn’t sink down wouldn’t become a fossil on a mountain, it would be fish food. A cursory glance at the fossil record would show that this is wrong. > > How many other tired long disproved creationist talking points are we going to see? The only things Hovind is an expert at is tax evasion and making shit up. He has no evidence whatsoever, an easy indicator of a non-authority. The fossils would be sorted based on their density and mass (hydrological sorting). Since the flood lasted over a year, there was plenty of time and tide changes for several layers. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/556 "2013-07-16T22:42:56Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Again, why bother? You said that your book was full of accurate prophecies, with no inaccurate ones. And yet, you’ve been shown very inaccurate prophesies, and you’re talking about how the apocalyptic ones can’t be refuted. This means they aren’t accurate. No, you claimed endtimes prophecies were innaccurate. That assumption speaks for itself. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/557 "2013-07-16T22:50:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I have no idea what this has to do with mountains, but if you multiply 23.8 million years by .25 inches a year (a figure I assume you pulled out of thin air), you will get something like a mountain. > Multiply a quarter of an inch per year by 23.8 million years and see what you get. > > From the same cite: “One reason the Chicxulub impact is of such interest is that it is thought to be responsible for the vast extinction of species that took place 65 million years ago.” > > Ibid, two sentences later: “The Chicxulub impact changed the Earth’s weather conditions so drastically that all the dinosaurs died off. This enabled mammals to assume the dinosaur’s dominant position.” I have no idea what you think you’re saying here. That was a citation of a meteor impact and crater, not a mountain. Regardless, the assumed rate of upward lift for mountains via tectonic shift is available to you, please correct me if that estimate was wrong. Here is some more info i just found: > **['Junk' DNA, asteroid impacts and supernovas](https://creation.com/junk-dna-asteroid-impacts-and-supernovas)** > > Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation. Asteroid impacts ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/558 "2013-07-16T22:59:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Individual strands of rna or dna are not considered to be living - viruses are basically dna in a shell. > From my understanding of the experiment, they use existing dna to save time. Do you think it is impossible for someone to assemble at least a short stand of dna? > > I searched on dna synthesis hoping to find an experiment, but it seems to be easy enough so that there are ads! [Here](http://www.trilinkbiotech.com/products/oligo/?gclid=CJXW8_n2tLgCFeR_QgodMlsAaQ) is one example - real biologists, please tell me if this counts. > > But no one claims these guys are creating life. Interesting and complicated, thanks though. > **[Oligonucleotide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligonucleotide)** > > Oligonucleotides are short DNA or RNA molecules, oligomers, that have a wide range of applications in genetic testing, research, and forensics. Commonly made in the laboratory by solid-phase chemical synthesis, these small fragments of nucleic acids can be manufactured as single-stranded molecules with any user-specified sequence, and so are vital for artificial gene synthesis, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), DNA sequencing, molecular cloning and as molecular probes. In nature, oligonucleotid Ol... ‘Oligonucleotides are chemically synthesized using building blocks, protected phosphoramidites of natural or chemically modified nucleosides or, to a lesser extent, of non-nucleosidic compounds.’ -derived from Phosphoramidites > **[Phosphoramidite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphoramidite)** > > A phosphoramidite (RO)2PNR2 is a monoamide of a phosphite diester. The key feature of phosphoramidites is their markedly high reactivity towards nucleophiles catalyzed by weak acids e.c., triethylammonium chloride or 1H-tetrazole. In these reactions, the incoming nucleophile replaces the NR2 moiety. > Phosphoramidites derived from protected nucleosides are referred to as nucleoside phosphoramidites and are widely used in chemical synthesis of DNA, RNA, and other nucleic acids and their analogs. > C... ‘Phosphoramidites derived from protected nucleosides are referred to as nucleoside phosphoramidites and are widely used in chemical synthesis of DNA, RNA, and other nucleic acids and their analogs.’ -derived from Nucleosides > **[Nucleoside](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleoside)** > > Nucleosides are glycosylamines that can be thought of as nucleotides without a phosphate group. A nucleoside consists simply of a nucleobase (also termed a nitrogenous base) and a five-carbon sugar (ribose or 2'-deoxyribose) whereas a nucleotide is composed of a nucleobase, a five-carbon sugar, and one or more phosphate groups. In a nucleoside, the anomeric carbon is linked through a glycosidic bond to the N9 of a purine or the N1 of a pyrimidine. Nucleotides are the molecular building blocks of... ‘Nucleosides are glycosylamines consisting of a nucleobase (often referred to as simply base) bound to a ribose or deoxyribose sugar via a beta-glycosidic linkage. Examples of nucleosides include cytidine, uridine, adenosine, guanosine, thymidine and inosine.’ Putting this all together, it seems the oligonucleotide synthesis requires several building blocks, only some of which may be found naturally. I will need more time to look at this, thank you. See yall tomorrow hopefully. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/559 "2013-07-16T23:23:46Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > This was in reference to a global flood that would leave billions of fossils. My original point was that a globally catastrophic meteor impact would not leave fossils. However, that was an interesting cite, fwiw. A bigger problem is why you find no hominid fossils in the Cambrian strata. If there was a global flood, why aren’t all the fossils essentially jumbled up together? Also since you didn’t respond to my last post, I’m assuming that this is a concession that the Bible isn’t inerrant and my criticisms have merit. I can now move onto the next batch of problems? Or are you adamant that the moon generates its own light and plants can live in, essentially, the vacuum of space? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/560 "2013-07-17T00:10:46Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > No, you claimed endtimes prophecies were innaccurate. That assumption speaks for itself. I did? You wanna point out where? I gave you a quote from Jesus, who said that all the stuff he was talking about would come to pass within a generation, and he was obviously wrong. This isn’t about end time, it’s about 2000 years ago. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=29)