# Well, it probably won't shut up creationists... \[self-replicating RNA enzyme systems\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2009, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901 "2009-01-12T12:08:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/101 "2009-01-13T02:30:57Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Nope, not a bit. When you can breath life into dust get back to us. We pretty much just did. Now let’s see your God do it. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/102 "2009-01-13T02:43:26Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > So sometimes I do pray about things like what route to take, or what store to go to, but more along the lines of ‘Father I am going to ----------, just letting you know.’ “Father I am going to roll the dice now, just letting you know that a 7 or an 11 would be really awesome” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/103 "2009-01-13T02:52:19Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > So sometimes I do pray about things like what route to take, or what store to go to, but more along the lines of ‘Father I am going to ----------, just letting you know.’ Doesn’t he already know? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/104 "2009-01-13T03:00:19Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > please keep in mind I am a pretty hard core atheist, I dont buy any of the nonsense that poses as religion the world over. that theory is something that came up in a conversation I had once, and out of all the whacko xian crap I usually hear it was really pretty refreshing. > > there will never be any evidence for the existence of god, God, Gods, FSM or the IPU, that is why its called faith. the sooner people of all religions stop crying about science attacking their faith and realize that the better off we will all be. I think the reason they call it the theory of evolution and the theory of the Big Bang is because there is no evidence. I really believe that is the reason. Now you have insulted all Christians and other people who have had a personal experience with God. I know that is not evidence to you, but to them it is proof. As for faith, everyone including atheists have faith in something. Like there not being a God for instance. As for crying about science attacking their faith I have not seen any crying just ignoring. Please don’t get angry and yell, it is of no use. It doesn’t matter what anyone believes about anything, it is only truth that matters. If we all searched for truth we would all be on the same side. I know you are intelligent, so you will understand that. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/105 "2009-01-13T03:03:01Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I think the reason they call it the theory of evolution and the theory of the Big Bang is because there is no evidence. I really believe that is the reason. That’s not the reason. You just don’t know what the word “theory” means in science. Evolution is a proven fact. It is also a proven fact that the universe expanded (and continues to expand) from an original singularity. A theory doesn’t even get _called_ a theory until it’s supporte by evidence. > [@](#): > > Now you have insulted all Christians and other people who have had a personal experience with God. I know that is not evidence to you, but to them it is proof. If it’s not evidence to anyone else, it’s not evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/106 "2009-01-13T03:07:47Z")
The word “theory” doesn’t always mean “Hell, who knows? It’s just a shot in the dark”. In fact, the word even gets used to describe things at the very apex of humanity’s ability to possess rock-hard, irrefutable, watertight knowledge. For example, I present to you: [number theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory). (I know arguing with **lekatt** is even less productive than arguing with **kanicbird** on this point. But they say these discussions aren’t done for the benefit of the participants, but for that of the onlookers…) ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/107 "2009-01-13T03:09:27Z")
Ha! There’s no evidence that numbers exist! ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/108 "2009-01-13T03:10:42Z")
D’oh! ---
**Author:** ![Cider\_Depot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Cider\_Depot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cider_Depot)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/109 "2009-01-13T03:11:57Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > But they say these discussions aren’t done for the benefit of the participants, but for that of the onlookers…) And I’d like to thank you for your efforts. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/110 "2009-01-13T03:23:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If it’s not evidence to anyone else, it’s not evidence. Now that’s just silly. If we accept what you just posted then we have to accept there is no evidence of anything at all. Dio I’ve said this before and 'll say it again: I agree with your positioin, I have alot of repsect for you as a poster, but you routinely overstate your position in this concrete way that makes it farcical and able to be refuted by any high schol debater. Any thing that any one group agrees is evidence will not be evidence to other groups or individuals. Science and law are the two most widely accepted fields that rely on rigorous standards of evidence, Yet much of what is routinely accepted as evidence in a courtroom would never be accepted as evidence in “Nature”, and similarly what is routinely accepted as evidence in scientific discourse would never be admissable in a court of law. For that matter I doubt that any piece of evidence is acceptable to every law court in the world. Therefore based on your position there is no evidence of anything at all because nothing is evidence to every person. Evidence is just what we use to determine the truth. All positions regarding the truth are based on evidence of some kind. Saying that anything that isn’t universally accepted isn’t evidence is just saying that we can never resolve any disputed truth. That makes your statement self referential, paradoxical and silly all at once. That’s quite a trick for a 10 word sentence. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/111 "2009-01-13T03:26:27Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I think the reason they call it the theory of evolution and the theory of the Big Bang is because there is no evidence. I really believe that is the reason. I guess that’s why _they_ call it the germ theory too? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/112 "2009-01-13T03:29:00Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Now that’s just silly. If we accept what you just posted then we have to accept there is no evidence of anything at all. You seem to have misinterpreted the quantification in **Dio** ’s sentence; he’s saying, if no one else accepts something as evidence, it should not count as evidence. He is not saying _everyone_ else has to accept something as evidence for it to count as evidence; he’s just saying that at least one other person has to. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/113 "2009-01-13T03:29:09Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I guess that’s why _they_ call it the germ theory too? And the theory of gravity? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/114 "2009-01-13T03:40:43Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I think the reason they call it the theory of evolution and the theory of the Big Bang is because there is no evidence. I really believe that is the reason. A theory is a model explaining observed data and anticipating future data. It’s held as true until contrary evidence is offered, or data doesn’t corroborate the expectations, at which point it is discarded or amended. Theories, too, evolve. ## There are no unequivocal truths in science\*, and no absolute rules either. Only theories. All require and are validated by existing evidence. There is plenty of evidence in favor of evolution and the Big Bang, and absolutely no evidence \*against \*evolution or the Big Bang. Yet. - : except in pure maths 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/115 "2009-01-13T03:50:32Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I think the reason they call it the theory of evolution and the theory of the Big Bang is because there is no evidence. I really believe that is the reason. Then you are even more ignorant than you appear to be. If I might suggest, please learn something about science before you talk about it. You’re just embarrassing yourself. > [@](#): > > Now you have insulted all Christians and other people who have had a personal experience with God. I know that is not evidence to you, but to them it is proof. As for faith, everyone including atheists have faith in something. Like there not being a God for instance. Wrong. No matter how often you repeat it droning on with stupidity like that doesn’t make it right. It isn’t faith to not believe something. Do you have an abiding faith in the non-existence of unicorns? > [@](#): > > As for crying about science attacking their faith I have not seen any crying just ignoring. > > Please don’t get angry and yell, it is of no use. It doesn’t matter what anyone believes about anything, it is only truth that matters. If we all searched for truth we would all be on the same side. I know you are intelligent, so you will understand that. If you searched for truth, you might realize that you’re devoted to a child’s story and wasting your life in the pursuit of ignorance and self-delusion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/116 "2009-01-13T03:54:55Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > You seem to have misinterpreted the quantification in **Dio** ’s sentence; he’s saying, if no one else accepts something as evidence, it should not count as evidence. He is not saying _everyone_ else has to accept something as evidence for it to count as evidence; he’s just saying that at least one other person has to. Exactly. Evidence has to be “evident” to more than one person. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/117 "2009-01-13T03:57:30Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > You seem to have misinterpreted the quantification in **Dio** ’s sentence; he’s saying, if no one else accepts something as evidence, it should not count as evidence. He is not saying _everyone_ else has to accept something as evidence for it to count as evidence; he’s just saying that at least one other person has to. In that case he is still wrong, and he is still overtstating his position in a ridiculous absolutist manner, and instead of being self referential, paradoxical and silly all at once it is now a non-sequitur, a strawman and silly all at once. To start with you or I can construct an argument within our own head or on paper that that is evidence based despite the fact that no one else accepts the evidence. If we don’t accept this then all groundbreaking science is not based on evidence because when it was reasoned out nobody else was even aware of the existence of the evidence, much less accepting of it. To take this to an extreme to prove a point, this position forces you to conclude that when [Semmelweis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis) said that disease was transmitted on unwashed hands, he was not basing that claim on evidence, because not a single person in the world accepted the evidence he produced. That is just silly. Of course Semmelweis’ claims were based on evidence. The fact that everybody else in the entire world discounted his evidence didn’t make it any less evidence. To say otherwise forces you to the ridiculous position of saying that his evidence wasn’t evidence when he initially used it, but it magically became evidence at some later date when some other person accepted it as evidence. The position is also a strawman because nobody here is discussing evidence that “at least one other person” does not accept. Certainly lekatt has not done so. I am absolutely certain lekatt’s experiences would be accepted as evidence wer ehe called upon to witness in countless churches worlwide. I doubt that you or Dio would dispute that this is true. Good grief, I can’t believe I’m siding with lekatt in a debate, but I’d rather see a debate based on rationality and not just let yet another of Dios silly absolutist positions slide past. Attacks lekatt’s position based on how silly it is, not by inventing silly and fallacious strawman positions from which to attack it. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/118 "2009-01-13T04:07:10Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Acceptance of evolution is a standard part of Christian theology\* - \*\*God intended to create a species with free will and intelligence (i.e. “in His image”) and used evolution as his means. \*\*The particular human shape is not a required outcome for evolution - and it wasn’t for God either. > > \*Yes, there are a few groups that think that there is a conflict, but Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterian, Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc., are not among those groups. Right, I understand, but how evolution works according to the theory of evolution does not allow there to be an endpoint. Therefore, it is simply not possible to endorse the theory of evolution and believe that god created man in his image. The bolded part above simply doesn’t make any sense–it’s not possible to use evolution as a means to come up with something because that’s not how evolution works. Stated another way, if you fully endorsed the theory of evolution, you would agree that there would still be dinosaurs roaming the earth if conditions were still right for them. In fact, mammals would never have come into existence if specific events hadn’t occurred that caused mammals to be the more fit species. However, as a Christian, there’s no way you could acknowledge that it is possible for humans never to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/119 "2009-01-13T04:12:29Z")
I have to side with Dio. Blake has, at most, a grammar nitpick. ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/120 "2009-01-13T04:14:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yes, but to God a minute is as a thousand minutes, so you’ll end up waiting most of the day. I don’t tithe for cold pizza. Surely a good delivery driver knows that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901.md?page=7)