Alaska has 5.8 quake, many quakes this week?

are you preparing for the rapture?

live close to a couple of graveyards. i'll keep an eye for zombies and let you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOl3UVt9cHQ

watch the first five minutes if you dare - don't be tribal and dismiss it out of hand because the guy is a christian enemy.

Hundreds every day (2 in Italy in last 1/2 hour)

http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake

how hard have you looked?

whats he misrepresenting? if the soup that's produced by the experiment is 98 percent toxic to life then how does producing any amino acids count at all.

the experiment is in the lab. Ideal conditions that never exist in reality and it fails. producing only two amino acids, out of twenty needed. He's made it limited in energy being applied too. Uv light variable. etc. etc. Nature must really love Darwin to get over all those hurdles.

Also no progression in sixty years of chemistry - I'm laughing my socks off and it's only twenty minutes into the video.

I suppose you abandoned the video after the five minutes. Because if you keep watching it. You might realize you've been sold a pup.

so point me to the new cutting research. i'm tired of cutting and pasting. you can cut n paste. find me the proof mr Dstyle. unless you are too busy.

but i'd concentrate more on why you wasted 80 minutes of your life listening to stuff that was evidently complete bullshit. and moreover that you can't detect the bullshit.

because there are some real howlers later on. he either doesn't even understand solvation, hydrolysis, and reaction kinetics (some of which is GCSE stuff) or his audience doesn't and he knows it.

think about that for a second.

i often wonder which is the bit of all this that you REALLY don't like. i mean, you do believe that the earth is more than 6000 years old don't you? We're not going to have to go there are we? And you don't think eve was made from adam's rib do you?

going back in time, when, give or take a few hundred million years, would you suggest it's reasonable to suggest God waving his wand? And just once, or repeatedly?

i suspect 99.99% of devout christians could live with all of abiogenesis and evolution if they were still allowed to believe that humans were created in god's image and that god is intimately concerned with our lives. that somehow that we're special and above all the other animals and god has a purpose for us. (however absurdly conceited that idea might be)

what's wrong with god setting up the cosmological constants, kick-starting the big bang, fully aware that ultimately the product would be creatures molded in his own image? because that's the only place you can be without losing the argument.

I've said it before, that the only place you can rationally be.

PEER REVIEWED papers off course will suffice.

Maths tells you that Abiogenesis is impossible. That anything that is 10 to the power of 50...10 with fifty zeros behind it is impossible.Mathematically impossible.

Francis Crick (DNA Watson and Crick)
“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about
two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average
length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each
place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred
times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that
is, a one followed by 260 zeros!”
An impossibility, but not the last hurdle to get over, one of hundreds, if not thousands of such impossibilities
for life to exist.

So the important question is this. What branch of science is most trustworthy. MATHS or Darwinist Theory. Everyday you use maths. Turn on your tv, use any machine and maths was used in it's construction. I rarely use Darwinist theory. It has no use. It's a philosophy of life. Not a hard science.

so for the second or third or maybe fourth time.

the crick quote prefaces an argument FOR EVOLUTION. I've already told you this before. I even told you which book it was in so you could go and read it. What he's saying is that there's no way molecules self assembled through chance. there had to be another mechanism.

your maths regarding abiogenesis is equally as idiotic

you are providing the odds of spontaneous assembly of macromolecules. No-one believes that's how it happened, it's another strawman put forward by creationists.

The whole point of abiogenesis research is to find plausible synthetic routes and biochemically plausible mechanisms leading to the first protocell.

Dstyle - you are on a gambling Forum, Do you pick a thousand to one shot every day you visit betfair? Because it's not just Cricks BS number that needs to be overcome. There's universal constants. There's hundreds of happenstances that cannot come about by chance. Even in lab perfect conditions they can't do it.
micro evolution, yes. Macro is BS. It's a wonder that you can't see this. I have to believe you are just refusing an intelligent creator because you don't like the outcome of being judged at the end. Dawkin's will accept aliens as the cause. God is a no go area with him? this speaks volumes. Every man has a chance to find God, I hope you wake up before the end.

Many distractions in life, welcome distractions.
Takes solitude usually to find God. Time to think.