# 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:** 8
**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, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/141 "2009-01-13T12:06:47Z")
Just to clarify, When I stated that lekatt’s tetsimony “should only convince the mentally deficient” I meant the testimony, not the experience. No intention to imply that Lekatt is mentally deficient for being convinced by his experience. Now if anyone becomes convinced of the existence of God because of his testimony regarding that experience, that’s another story. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/142 "2009-01-13T12:18:03Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I suggest that you move on to another thread. Yeah, I’ll take up that suggestion; because frankly, after all that condescension, I don’t see myself ever taking anything you say seriously again. All of your argumentation is purely self-serving, and that’s frankly sickening. ---
**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, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/143 "2009-01-13T12:46:53Z")
You’re pretty dab at building strawmen, for one who accuses everyone else of doing so. I was actually arguing that by your definition (unsubstantiated testimony = evidence), any statement is its own evidence. So, a person denying the existence of giraffes is evidence that giraffes don’t exist. ---
**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, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/144 "2009-01-13T14:09:22Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > 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 🙂 I am truly glad you cleared that up for us, and I agree. But you see the Big Bang and evolution are not observed data. What you create in the lab today can’t be compared with what happened billions of years ago because there were no observers billions of years ago. No one knows if or how evolution developed as well as the Big Bang. Science finds fossils and then opines how there got there and what they mean. Science measures planets, their speed, etc. and opines what started them, but no one was there when they started and no one knows. That is when a theory is born. You can call your opinions evidence if you like, I don’t care, but it really isn’t evidence. I believe the world would be better off without theories on anything. If the truth were apparent or could be determined then great. If not it simply remains “unknown.” I know this is not a “scientific” definition, it is a rational and logical one. Heck, I am so old I can remember when real scientists thought as I do. Used to love science before it became a kind of religion. Never loved religion. That is my take on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/145 "2009-01-13T14:26:05Z")
What makes something evidence for a conclusion is not who _has_ believed the conclusion on the basis of the purported evidence, but rather, whether people _should_ believe the conclusion on the basis of that evidence. So for example, the guy discussed above who figured out that sterility is good, he had evidence because he had information which people _should_ accept as leading to the conclusion that sterility is good. Meanwhile, the deluded lady in the example given by Blake does not have evidence for her conclusions because she does _not_ have information which people should accept as leading to her conclusions. So yes, it is possible for someone to have evidence even though no one else accepts the evidence–if those people _should_ accept the evidence. But this does not mean that every crazy delusion or line of reasoning put forth by any individual whatsoever counts as evidence just because some one person found it plausible. If that person shouldn’t have found it plausible, then it’s not evidence. There can be difficult cases for this kind of distinction, though. What if the lady in Blake’s example wasn’t crazy but instead was the victim of a number of coincidences or a practical joke of some kind? Then it seems like she was reasonable in drawing the conclusions she did–about her we can say she should indeed have draw the conclusions she did. Does this mean she had evidence? Here I suggest we understand that evidence is relative. Information can be evidence to some for a conclusion while failing to be evidence to others for the same conclusion. But what makes it evidence for one and not for others isn’t whether they _do_ accept it as leading to the conclusion, but rather whether they _should_ accept it as leading to the conclusion. ---
**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, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/146 "2009-01-13T14:37:26Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I am truly glad you cleared that up for us, and I agree. But you see the Big Bang and evolution are not observed data. What you create in the lab today can’t be compared with what happened billions of years ago because there were no observers billions of years ago. No one knows if or how evolution developed as well as the Big Bang. Science finds fossils and then opines how there got there and what they mean. Science measures planets, their speed, etc. and opines what started them, but no one was there when they started and no one knows. That is when a theory is born. You can call your opinions evidence if you like, I don’t care, but it really isn’t evidence. I believe the world would be better off without theories on anything. If the truth were apparent or could be determined then great. If not it simply remains “unknown.” I know this is not a “scientific” definition, it is a rational and logical one. Heck, I am so old I can remember when real scientists thought as I do. Used to love science before it became a kind of religion. Never loved religion. That is my take on the subject. You missed out on a crucial part of what I said : theories predict (or posit, if you will) future results. That include as-of-yet-unnoticed \*past \*results. For example, as has already been said, pondering over the implications of Big Bang theory led scientists to the deduction (or is it induction ? I can never remember which is which) that if it were correct, there would be observable background radiation. So they looked for background radiation and bingo, that’s what they found, validating that part of their deductions. The main job of a scientist is not to believe, or to accept, but to prod at theories and look in earnest for everything that could prove them wrong - because scientists are looking for the Truth, they don’t care nor have use for false theories. So, yes, I suppose cosmology and evolutions are “unknown” in the same sense that it is unknown whether a dropped rock will fall on your feet until you’ve dropped it - there is a 0.000000[…]0000001% chance it could hang in the air this time, vanishing an order of magnitude further each time a rock is dropped. Lots of rocks have been dropped over the course of history. None have floated. And as long as no one provides evidence of floating rocks, or reliable records of rocks having floated at any time before, the theory of gravitation holds and is, for all intensive porpoises, 100% true. But if you accept the possibility of floating rocks as not only possible, but probable enough to base your existence on it, that’s your right. If you want to believe in magic, I can’t stop you. Don’t expect anyone to take you seriously though. ---
**Author:** ![BJMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5fc32e/32.png) [@BJMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BJMoose)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/147 "2009-01-13T14:49:10Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > - > - > - What you create in the lab today can’t be compared with what happened billions of years ago because there were no observers billions of years ago. \* \* \* One can throw that observation at Creationism, too. Since no one was around billions of years ago to watch Yahweh create the cosmos _ex nihilo_, how can we possibly be sure it happened that way? Anyway, if I may have the temerity to return to the cold mutton of the OP: what caught my attention is that they were able to see _spontaneous_ mutations occur in their RNA Soup. That certain organic compounds can “replicate” themselves is no surprise - that’s just basic chemistry (e.g., under the appropiate conditions, two molocules of hydrogen and one of oxygen will snuggle up together and create water; always). Since Spontaneous Mutation is a significant component of Evolutionary Theory, this is indeed big news. ---
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/148 "2009-01-13T16:04:24Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I am truly glad you cleared that up for us, and I agree. But you see the Big Bang and evolution are not observed data. Yes they are. ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/149 "2009-01-13T16:19:23Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, it isn’t. Would you care to explain that with some actual logic or references. you know, like I’ve done? Rather than just toss it out as a total non sequitur. > To keep it easy for you I’ll accept the definition of evidence used by any major dictionary or any legal systemon the planet as “my definition”. That’s what I’ve been using so far. Scientific evidence and legal evidence have two different definitions. I think we’ve identified part of your problem. You have no idea what scientific evidence is.Here. [Educate yourself](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence). You will see that scientific evidence, by definition, must be _empirical_. If it’s not empirical (and “revelation” is not), then it’s not evidence. It’s just that simple. Scientific evidence, by definition, must be something which is apprehensible to the senses either directly or indirectly. That’s what “empirical” means. If it’s nothing that can’t be physically seen, heard, smelt, felt or tasted, it’s not evidence. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/150 "2009-01-13T16:22:59Z")
**TWEEEEEEET!!!** > [@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. > > 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. **lekatt** , you’re out of this thread. You have been told to stop posting this error, (regardless what you–along with Humpty Dumpty–might choose to believe), on several occasions, including officially. What you claim to “believe” about the word theory is nothing more than your willful ignorance that is clearly wrong in any objective analysis. Your decision to claim insult at the opinions of others, particularly given the insulting way you comment on other people’s views, is ironic (and ludicrous). Since you cannot behave yourself, you are not to participate in this thread, further. **EVERYONE ELSE** , you will take this silly metadebate about belief and evidence out of this thread, as well. You may open a new thread to hammer away on the issue, (in which case **lekatt** can join you in your collective folly), but that hijack is now off limits in this thread. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/151 "2009-01-13T16:32:29Z")
I had some more thoughts about the fallen world theory (FWT) I posted above and the theory of evolution (ToE). The FWT does not contradict what God told man about the world, is observable to anyone who is willing to look, it is something that can be verified on a personal level, does not depend on the wisdom of men (which God has told man not to depend on), nor does it require the blind acceptance of what men say. It also requires thinking that is independent of group think. The ToE does directly contradict what God has already told man, is not observable to anyone on a personal level, does depend on the wisdom of men, (which God has warned us not to do), it is the very definition of group think. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/152 "2009-01-13T16:35:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Doesn’t he already know? Yes, but He is my Father and Loves to hear from me. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/153 "2009-01-13T16:41:58Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > The ToE does directly contradict what God has already told man,\*\* is not observable to anyone on a personal level\*\*, does depend on the wisdom of men, (which God has warned us not to do), it is the very definition of group think. bolding mine Actual [evolutionary events have been witnessed by people and documented by scientists](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Your observation is in error, rendering the rest of your argument moot. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/154 "2009-01-13T16:42:47Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > So, a last side theological question since I do not think we can come to an agreement on the need to replace God: do you consider it right or good to depend on God for all decisions? In other words, do consider it evil to try and reason for yourself? Do you believe the ability to think and reason is a temptation of the enemy of a gift of God? > > Jonathan A will not submitted to God is not going to do righteous things. In making a decision one should ask if there is any desire of the flesh clouding judgment, and if so I would suggest turning to God to help make the decision He wants you to make. People who do not have Jesus living inside them don’t have this ability and they will continue to do evil even though they may try to do good. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/155 "2009-01-13T16:44:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > bolding mine > > Actual [evolutionary events have been witnessed by people and documented by scientists](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Your observation is in error,\*\* rendering the rest of your argument moot\*\*. Bold mine What sort of self righteous statement is this, the statement: 1 stands because you did not observe it on a personal level and I claim you are unable to, you are taking man’s word on it. 2: the rest of the statement stands with that part removed. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/156 "2009-01-13T16:47:25Z")
> [@Yumblie](#): > > So you’re saying [dark energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy)…is sin? That’s a pretty fascinating interpretation of cosmology. You’d think God would’ve mentioned this when writing the Bible, as 70% of the mass-energy density of the entire universe being the essence of sin seems pretty important. Is there detectable redshift in areas of high sin concentration, like strip clubs and science museums? I see a good research thesis opportunity! Since you mentioned it, perhaps dark energy or dark matter is the parts of the world/universe that is hidden from is, such as the Kingdom of God which is, according to scriptures, among us, though we can’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/157 "2009-01-13T16:52:55Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Bold mine > What sort of self righteous statement is this, the statement: 1 stands because you did not observe it on a personal level and I claim you are unable to, you are taking man’s word on it. 2: the rest of the statement stands with that part removed. I know darned well that you have not taken the time to actually read the linked site, so there is no basis for you to claim that the events noted there were not witnessed “on a personal level.” They were observed in real time by real people within the last couple of years, not deduced from evidence. While you are claiming that I am “taking man’s word for it,” I will note that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have an interpretation of the bible that is wholly your own–not God’s–permitting me to simply dismiss your claim as nothing more than a (very solipsistic, not divine), belief. Now, if you are going to pursue this line of argument, open a new thread to discuss it. This thread has enough hijacks without taking this one. ETA: You initial claim was that evolution is not observable by any person. If you are now going to slither out of that claim by saying that **I** have not personally witnessed it, I will have to conclude that you are simply “debating” in bad faith. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/158 "2009-01-13T16:55:05Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Could you elaborate on this process a bit? Did the stars move? Did the past get longer ago (I mean, faster than one second per second)? I would say according to the theory that though they didn’t move, we have, our falling has distanced us from everything around us including our ability to perceive them appears further away. It could be applies to time as well. As stars appeared to move, to complete the image they would have to appear to be much older. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/159 "2009-01-13T17:11:09Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I would say according to the theory that though they didn’t move, we have, our falling has distanced us from everything around us including our ability to perceive them appears further away. It could be applies to time as well. As stars appeared to move, to complete the image they would have to appear to be much older. You do realize that, whatever it is that you actually believe, it’s not Christianity as it exists in any mainstream denomination, right? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901/160 "2009-01-13T17:36:20Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > You do realize that, whatever it is that you actually believe, it’s not Christianity as it exists in any mainstream denomination, right? Yes I am aware, nor to I identify with any mainstream denomination, though I do attend such services. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-it-probably-wont-shut-up-creationists-self-replicating-rna-enzyme-systems/480901.md?page=9)