Yuku free message boards

Crawl and 1OOO wrote:

---

There is no "creationist thought", and scientists are under no obligation to "infringe" upon it.

What creationists say at any given time is based on what lies they feel they can get away with with that given audience. Or it can be based on what specific misunderstandings of evolutionary theory a given creationist has. Or gainsaying evolutionary theories while adding nothing of its own.

That's a very arrogant statement to make, but I wasn't even trying to make a case for creationism to begin with. You were the one to introduce creationism being under attack by this sort of discovery, not me. All I did was make a brief statement discussing that particular angle of your comment. Blanket dismissal of the idea, though, is at its very best presumptuous. I'm well aware of the old experiment recreating the Earth's volatile primordial state, and how the reactions could feasibly have formed the basics of amino acids. There's a long way to go between synthesizing amino acids, though, and specializing proteins into nucleic acids that will instruct the formation of the complexities of a single cell with its mitochondria, Golgi bodies, endoplasmic reticuli, etc., in order to complete the function of even the most basic currently understood organism. I'm not saying that that complexity demands a supernatural solution, but I'll happily say that it is arrogant to the point of condescent to the religions of the world to assume that any notion thereof is ludicrous.