The linked article by John Rennie in Scientific American was originally published in 2002 but it hasn’t lost any of its actuality nor has it been refuted by creationists. Creationist arguments also haven’t changed significantly since then, demonstrating how they are simply unable to formulate an opposing theory to evolution. I’ve also written some answers to creationists nonsense earlier on this blog and have also explored if creationism is plausible.
New Scientist has an article announcing that a team of the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich has found a plausible way to generate the two purine nucleosides, adenosine and guanosine – A and G in the genetic code. This is a big step to explaining how RNA may have formed spontaneously on the primordial Earth.
RNA molecules are thought to be some of the earliest self-replicators that led to life. Now their building blocks have been made to self-assemble in a lab
An interesting piece in The Guardian by Dr. David Hone, about why creationists are out of time with history and science. It explores one example of the dishonesty that creationists are forced to employ in order to make creation “fit” with their view of reality: a world created by God.
Creationists fail to appreciate the history of science as well as science itself
“A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence M. Krauss had been on my list of books to read for some time but for some reason I didn’t get around to reading it until recently, which is something I now dearly regret. It is not often that reading a book will change the way you view the universe. This one does.
Well, this research certainly explains something about why debates with theists are usually pointless. If they don’t engage their analytical potential…
The fourth part of the debate that wasn’t a debate, a conversation I had with Makayla, over on Twitter. The first part can be read here and the second part can be found here, the third part is here. I recommend you read those before reading this part.
In the previous part of this conversation, we explored the question: “How can we know what is true and what is evidence?” From there, we arrived at evolution and morality. We pick up the discussion there. Eventually, the discussion returned to evidence.
Disclaimer: Makayla gave her permission for the creation of this post and it’s follow-ups. I promise to represent her part faithfully though for brevity, I will have to condense both her and my points.