Re: HOW TO WIND THE 2.0 EVOLUTION PRIZE BY THE MAN WHO INITIATED THE PRIZE

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:20:00 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:09:03 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 
<snip for focus>
 

Of course the single most commonly agreed upon theory is the first life
came about through the RNA world. But where did we get RNA World? If we
don't know where RNA came from, it too is
out of bounds. If we know nothing about life's origin what do we really
know about evolution. This I think leaves evolution without a foundation.

 

,

 
Incorrect. According to Gallup, the most commonly agreed up theory in
the U.S. is that God created first life:
>

You're probably about that, but chances are your Christians who are in
agreement, never heard of the RNA world.  But, of course I was not in
reference to Christians. 

Your *only* qualification here is which is "single most commonly
agreed upon theory".  That makes your comment above pointless
waffling.

In the Darwinian world there is
no common agreement as to reality of the RNA World to say _nothing_ as
to its origin, where or how it come about.
>

>

These article from the Guardian, a British paper might interest you.
>
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

>

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

 
https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx#>
 
After all, the Bible tells me so.
>

Obviously, I was wrong to aroused you of being an atheist. I apologize.

This particular wrong is about your failure to acknowledge or correct
your repetitive lies wrt the relationship between evolution and
atheism.  Don't even try to make it about me personally.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge