"It's quite telling that you failed to answer my last post (Are you a liar?). An honest person would not have sidestepped the question."
What didn't I answer?
"No, I am not a moron. I suspect most here already know this, but for those not quite so insightful I have no reservations pointing out the obvious."
That was a joke, although you took so long to reply I was getting worried.
"I suspect you'll eventually realize you're out of your league in this forum. Many of us here have chased Russian Kandidats and physics PhDs away, and so it is quite serendipitous for your attention craving that no one with a truly insuperable passion is currently trolling here. But beware -- the moment a more interesting petitioner drops by your banter will suddenly become as graffiti to the rest of us: annoying, but easily overlooked."
What exactly is the league in this forum? I think I have made many good points in my almost one month here, and I will continue to do so.
Me: "How often do amino acids create themselves in the wild?"
You: "Well, at least once. That is precisely the point."
How convienient for you. If Stanley just recreated normally occuring compounds, wouldn't life create itself quite frequently? Not just once?
"Another fact the ICR identifies is that oxygen destroys non-living organic compounds. However, they neglect to mention that the concentration of oxygen would have to be many times its current level in order to be as damaging as they propose.
(Our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, and only about 1/5th oxygen.)"
Wow. You know exactly the atmospheric composition a couple billion years ago. What if there was more oxygen a long time ago? Just a theory.
"Finally, the ICR points to the fact that scientists have not explained the "next step." The transition from amino acid to life has not been explained, and so some offer this as "proof" of creationism."
I'm shocked too. How could they present the fact that there is no phyiscal way known to have life arise from non-living material as evidence for evolution? I mean, all this means is that biological evolution could not have happened!
How silly of them.
"Science is the search for knowledge."
Well, thank you for explaining science. Evidentally everyone in this forum understands the meaning of science except for me.
"...I'm afraid you will never genuinely appreciate why science and religion are not really at odds with one another."
Religion and science are not at odds with eachother. My Religion is supported by science.