Illuminati...your thoughts?

[RMM]

My question is What is wrong with Satan ?
What bad things did he do ?

"I tell you, Satan's gonna have no trouble taking over here 'cause all the women are gonna say: 'What a cute butt.' 'He's Satan!' 'You don't know him like I do.' 'He's the Prince of Darkness!' 'I can change him.'"

 

[Guoy Darko]

You are half-correct. For example, the church of Satan in San Francisco does not worship Satan *directly* rather they simply reject all of God's laws. They state: 'Let thou will be done, that is the whole of the law.' In other words, screw God, do whatever the hell you want.

But the Bible states clearly that rejecting God is *siding with the devil.* Now obviously a guy who rejects God is not really actively 'worshipping the devil' but he is on the devil's side. He is OPPOSED to God. You are either for God, or against him, there is no middle ground.

There really are only 2 forces. Good and evil. Good is following the God of the Bible. Evil is NOT following the God of the Bible, in other words, all the other religions are used as instruments of the Devil. In the lower levels of free-masonery, there is no direct worship of Satan, rather it is just a club. You scratch your back, I'll scratch your back, let's look out for each other in industry, and in the courthouse.

But once you get to the upper levels of freemasonery, there is DIRECT worship of Satan. That's why Freemasonery is often referred to as having *initiates* and *followers.* The followers are in the lower orders and they just think it's a cool club. But the initiates participate in various rituals to tap into spiritual powers.

Why the **** are most Americans so obsessed with Christianity? The whole "all other religions are instruments of the Devil" is just so pathetic and laughable. Religion is a phenomenon that can mostly be explained by geography: where you were born and what your parents believe is what you will believe. If your parents, teachers, friends, church or whatever tell you the truth is Christianity and that all other religions are "wrong" it's too simple to just accept that. Well it's understandable till the age of 12. But when you're 27 and still believe that, you will probably believe anything. By saying that it is understandable you believe in the illuminati.

In the Iraq, Iran region, millions of people believe in Allah. It's just as understandable as everybody from the US believe in the Christian God. Are they all wrong, just because you say so? Of course not. They will also tell your God is the wrong one.

 

[CaptainJ]

"I tell you, Satan's gonna have no trouble taking over here 'cause all the women are gonna say: 'What a cute butt.' 'He's Satan!' 'You don't know him like I do.' 'He's the Prince of Darkness!' 'I can change him.'"

^^ LOL this is so true

 

[Trader]

Why the **** are most Americans so obsessed with Christianity? The whole "all other religions are instruments of the Devil" is just so pathetic and laughable.

Christianity claims there is only One True God, and when you worship false Gods, you are not saved.

Religion is a phenomenon that can mostly be explained by geography: where you were born and what your parents believe is what you will believe. If your parents, teachers, friends, church or whatever tell you the truth is Christianity and that all other religions are "wrong" it's too simple to just accept that. Well it's understandable till the age of 12. But when you're 27 and still believe that, you will probably believe anything. By saying that it is understandable you believe in the illuminati.

Yawn, another illogical person. Sure religion can be explained by geography, if you are born in the US, you are more likely to be raised in a Christian household than if you were born in Iran.

But what does have to do with whether Christianity is true or not? Absolutely nothing. That's why you lack logic, well you do employ chick logic.

In the Iraq, Iran region, millions of people believe in Allah. It's just as understandable as everybody from the US believe in the Christian God. Are they all wrong, just because you say so? Of course not. They will also tell your God is the wrong one.

People who worship Allah are not wrong, because I say so. They are wrong, because they are worshipping a lie.

Of course, the Muslims believe Christians are worshipping the wrong God.

So there really are 3 possibilities: either Christians are correct, Muslims are correct, or both of us are wrong.

So basically your entire post was completely meaningless, since you have investigated neither Christianity nor Islam for their validity. Basically you are lazy and employ chick logic.

Cheers!

 

[Rogue]

Trader:
Yawn, another illogical person. Sure religion can be explained by geography, if you are born in the US, you are more likely to be raised in a Christian household than if you were born in Iran. But what does have to do with whether Christianity is true or not? Absolutely nothing. That's why you lack logic, well you do employ chick logic.

Yet another irrational person. You have no evidence, specifically no scientific evidence, to support your belief. The burden of proof rests upon claimants to first prove their belief and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Should we be agnostic with respect to leprechauns and fairies or invisible dragons in your garage? If you consider the thousands of religions, tens or hundreds of thousands of celestial divinities if you consider religions of antiquity, you only have a statistical 1 in N chance of being correct, and so your religious belief is probably wrong, and that is not counting Occam's Razor which would slice the number to virtually zero percent chance. What chick logic from you.

 

[Guoy Darko]

Christianity claims there is only One True God, and when you worship false Gods, you are not saved.

Yes, every single religion says it's the right one. But just because it says so, doesn't mean it's true.

Sure religion can be explained by geography, if you are born in the US, you are more likely to be raised in a Christian household than if you were born in Iran.

There you got it! That's all there is to it!

But what does have to do with whether Christianity is true or not? Absolutely nothing. That's why you lack logic, well you do employ chick logic.

Sigh, another illogical **** argument. If that's your logic, you keep running in circles. If you were born in Iran you would've given your life for your one and only true God. Every religious person in the whole world will claim his/her religion is the correct one. So it has EVERYTHING to do with geography and nothing else. You just copied your communities religion and nothing else. Did you study every religion in the world and came up with Christianity? No, it was probably just shoved down your throat since you were five.

Chick logic? Well then I guess chicks are smarter than guys.

People who worship Allah are not wrong, because I say so. They are wrong, because they are worshipping a lie.

And you say that based on absolutely nothing.

Of course, the Muslims believe Christians are worshipping the wrong God.

If you were a muslim I would tell you the exact same thing.

So there really are 3 possibilities: either Christians are correct, Muslims are correct, or both of us are wrong.

4 possibilities: or another religion, unknown to you, is the right one.

So basically your entire post was completely meaningless, since you have investigated neither Christianity nor Islam for their validity.

Well you don't have to study religion to check if it's true or not, because you cannot check it. Everything happened thousands of years ago, and the only sources there are, are the books which just say it is true without any proof or backup.

If Christianity says that Moses received the ten commandments, there is no way to check if that really happened. You only have the bible, which says it is true, because God says it is true, and God never lies, so it must be true. If that's your logic you keep running in circles. But with your "They are wrong, because they are worshipping a lie." you do exactly the same. But I've been to my share of Christian schools.

Question: where in the bible does it prove it is only true religion? You studied your Christianity I presume.

 

[EA Gold]

I've been trying to ignore this thread for a while but it seems to keep growing and growing. Anyway I did not read most of the posts here but since were on a conspiracy theory mood, how about i throw this out there.

What if the truth is the Islam religion is actually a Creation of the Roman Catholic religion in order to recapture Jerusalem under their control.

The original manuscripts had it written where the Pope would be obeyed any faiths other than the Catholic religion were infidels and to be killed such as Jews and true Christians.

As a result thousands among thousands of Jews and Christians were killed and Jerusalem was captured and to be turned over to the Roman Catholic Pope. Things did not turn out the way as Muslim Priests edited the original Koran manuscripts where the Roman Catholic's and the pope were now infidels as well.

In Which they began attacking Byzantine and Roman Catholic Armies and territories.

Thus the beginning of 200 years of war called the Crusades.

 

[TriniBoySmooth]

@ OP: I am fascinated by this topic (not to say I believe it). It's like a never ending science fiction novel.

@ Religious guy: We are all atheists; I just believe in one less god then you do.

 

[Trader]

Yet another irrational person. You have no evidence, specifically no scientific evidence, to support your belief. The burden of proof rests upon claimants to first prove their belief and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You cannot *prove* God, that is why it is called faith. Now, does that mean it is blind faith and that there is NO evidence to support the faith? Of course not. There is lots of evidence to SUPPORT my faith, but you cannot *reason* your way to God. Evidence can be used as a step ladder but the finally leg up must be faith.

To give you one example of scientific evidence to support my belief of God, scientists have long known that the universal constants (i.e. gravity, universal gas constants) if they are even altered by a tiny fraction, say 1 x 10-1000000, then conditions would not support life. If there was no creator designing the universe, was it simply by chance that conditions turned out to be favorable to life?

Should we be agnostic with respect to leprechauns and fairies or invisible dragons in your garage? If you consider the thousands of religions, tens or hundreds of thousands of celestial divinities if you consider religions of antiquity, you only have a statistical 1 in N chance of being correct, and so your religious belief is probably wrong, and that is not counting Occam's Razor which would slice the number to virtually zero percent chance. What chick logic from you.

Your assumption is that each religion has an equal probability of being correct. Why do you make that assumption? Because you are damn lazy to investigate. You fail to understand the origins of each religion, the number of manuscripts that support the Bible.

How can you possibly employ Occam's Razor in this situation? It is impossible. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation, the one that has the least number of assumptions, is usually the correct one. So which is the simplest explanation? That an eternal Creator created the Universe, or that 'something came out of nothing' from the big bang? Which is simpler? Each explanation requires a total leap of faith.

Of course, you would say: 'Well the simpler explanation is the big bang.' Actually great logicians such as Socrates always assumed that a God existed, they never once considered that 'something came from nothing' since that would involve more complexities.

You just employed Occam's Razor in the wrong situation, you just slit your wrists and now you are bleeding to death.

 

[rakishness]

Scene from Sherlock Holmes (Probably happened in real life)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XySkIiYyWE

My powers and my assets were
given to me for one purpose.


Magnificent, but a simple purpose.


To create a new future.


A future ruled... by us.


Tomorrow at noon, we take the first step
towards a new chapter in our history.


Magic will lead the way.


Once the people of England
see our new found power


they'll bow down in fear.


Across the Atlantic, lies a
colony that was once ours.


It will be again.


The civil war has
made them weak.


Their government is as corrupt
and as ineffective as ours.


So we'll take it back.


We will remake the world.


Create the future.

 

[TriniBoySmooth]

To give you one example of scientific evidence to support my belief of God, scientists have long known that the universal constants (i.e. gravity, universal gas constants) if they are even altered by a tiny fraction, say 1 x 10-1000000, then conditions would not support life. If there was no creator designing the universe, was it simply by chance that conditions turned out to be favorable to life?

Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQGJnE8Y6n8

 

[Rogue]

Trade:
To give you one example of scientific evidence to support my belief of God, scientists have long known that the universal constants (i.e. gravity, universal gas constants) if they are even altered by a tiny fraction, say 1 x 10-1000000, then conditions would not support life. If there was no creator designing the universe, was it simply by chance that conditions turned out to be favorable to life?

That is not scientific evidence. You are obviously illiterate of the rebuttals to intelligent design as you have just used the number one argument of creationists and it has no weight. In my favorite words of Noble Prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg, "A journalist who has been assigned to interview lottery winners may come to feel that some special providence has been at work on their behalf, but he should keep in mind the much larger number of lottery players whom he is not interviewing because they haven't won anything." The constants of the universe support human life because those are the conditions under which human life arose. If the constants were different then our currently operative human life would not exist, but life systems, if life systems were to arise, would arise differently. And as both Weinberg notes in his hallmark essay "A Designer Universe?", as Temple University professor John Allen Paulos notes in "What's Wrong With Creationist Probability?", a priori probability is a fallacious argument. It's comparable to being dealt a hand in the game of bridge and claiming then therefore the one in many billions chance of being dealt the hand means you couldn't have been dealt the hand by chance! Arizona State University theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, author of "The Physics of Star Trek," explains in his lecture "A Universe From Nothing" (YouTube) the scientific basis of how the universe could have come from "nothing" (because there is something in nothing).

Your assumption is that each religion has an equal probability of being correct. Why do you make that assumption? Because you are damn lazy to investigate.

Each has zero scientific evidence, zero empirical basis of observation, and therefore in principle are all equally unsubstantiated, baseless, and improbable. Assumptions are blind faith and presumptions are conclusions based upon the preponderance of available evidence.

How can you possibly employ Occam's Razor in this situation? It is impossible. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation, the one that has the least number of assumptions, is usually the correct one. So which is the simplest explanation? That an eternal Creator created the Universe, or that 'something came out of nothing' from the big bang? Which is simpler? Each explanation requires a total leap of faith.

The answer is naturalism. Naturalism does not require a "leap of faith" because we know naturalism exists. The Big Bang is proven beyond all doubt to have occurred—you have to be seriously uneducated to deduce otherwise—and scientists do have mountains of evidence in respective scientific fields, which converge in cross-triangulation to independently confirm the Big Bang, to provide a chain of events from the Big Bang to the formation of galaxies, stars, solar systems, all the way down towards evolution. Naturalism is the conservative position and conservative positions win in intellectual debates where an intellectual proposition is said to be "neither provable nor disprovable," as eloquently explained by John Shook from the Center For Inquiry in a debate (YouTube) with intelligent design proponent William Craig. (I do highly suggest you watch the debate and read all my cited links before replying.)

That an eternal Creator created the Universe, or that 'something came out of nothing' from the big bang? Which is simpler? Each explanation requires a total leap of faith.

Assumptions are blind faith and presumptions are conclusions based upon the preponderance of available evidence. I assume you didn't know the difference between assumption and presumption, and I presume your inferential conclusions are wrong.

 

[TriniBoySmooth]

That is not scientific evidence. You are obviously illiterate of the rebuttals to intelligent design as you have just used the number one argument of creationists and it has no weight. Things are the way they are because we wouldn't be here to note it was different if it was different. In my favorite words of Noble Prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg, "A journalist who has been assigned to interview lottery winners may come to feel that some special providence has been at work on their behalf, but he should keep in mind the much larger number of lottery players whom he is not interviewing because they haven't won anything." The constants of the universe support human life because those are the conditions under which human life arose. If the constants were different then our currently operative human life would not exist, but life systems, if life systems were to arise, would arise differently. And as both Weinberg notes in his hallmark essay "A Designer Universe?", as Temple University professor John Allen Paulos notes in "What's Wrong With Creationist Probability?", a priori probability is a fallacious argument. It's comparable to being dealt a hand in the game of bridge and claiming then therefore the one in six billion chance of being dealt the hand means you couldn't have been dealt the hand by chance! Arizona State University theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, author of "The Physics of Star Trek," explains in his lecture "A Universe From Nothing" the scientific basis of how the universe could have come from "nothing" (because there is something in nothing).Each has zero scientific evidence, zero empirical basis of observation, and therefore in principle are all equally unsubstantiated, baseless, and improbable. Assumptions are blind faith and presumptions are conclusions based upon the preponderance of available evidence.The answer is naturalism. Naturalism does not require a "leap of faith" because we know naturalism exists. The Big Bang is proven beyond all doubt to have occurred—you have to be seriously uneducated to deduce otherwise—and scientists do have mountains of evidence in respective scientific fields, which converge in cross-triangulation to independently confirm the Big Bang, to provide a chain of events from the Big Bang to the formation of galaxies, stars, solar systems, all the way down towards evolution. Naturalism is the conservative position and conservative positions win in intellectual debates where an intellectual proposition is said to be a "neither provable nor disprovable," as eloquently explained by John Shook from the Center For Inquiry in a debate with intelligent design proponent William Craig. (I do highly suggest you watch the debate and read all my cited links before replying.)Assumptions are blind faith and presumptions are conclusions based upon the preponderance of available evidence. I assume you didn't know the difference between assumption and presumption, and I presume your inferential conclusions are wrong.

the youtube video somes it all up mate, but it's good to see a fellow enlightened individual

 

[Rescue Mission]

what happens when you give a guy who is nerdy, doesn't get laid, and has too much free time and access to the internet? conspiracy theories that use youtube videos, made by other virgin nerds with too much free time, as evidence

 

[jonwon]

Religion - Simply put from my point of view, is selfish in its nature.

A form of servitude that is entered into with total obediance.

What you fundimentally have is acceptance to nothing more than a slave to a higher power.

Much like being an employee for a large organisation with the MD the power and glory for the lower tier to try to impress.

Why is it selfish?

The words "You will be saved" - In-bedded into those words is the presumption that the person to be saved is by default guilty of some crime from birth and the only way to be free from this criminal act, is to conform to the higher power and glory. The reason why it is selfish, is because the person who accepts this, is following the dogma because they 'fear' the alternative consequences.

Also it feeds the selfish ego gene, in that the person who follows the religious dogma, also feels on a higher plane of knowledge than someone out of the loop, they feel superior - they believe they have an hidden knowledge and the others around them, are ignorant - That in parts is a welcoming feeling, yes it's contradictory when they try to bring more people into the fold, but the sense of importance is still there, under the surface like a buried taboo.

The reason why its servitude - Is because the person will follow the dogma to be freed, hence they confirm and comply with what is written in the knowledge that they will be saved.

Saved from what?

They also have an answer for that too.

Problem, action, solution.

Present the problem - Your guilty of a crime, you need to redeem yourself.

Present the action - If you dont redeem yourself you will be condemned for all eternity.

Present the solution - Conform and comply and you will be saved, oh and we love you!

The whole premise is an absurd smoke screen for social conformity -

Also about the creation of the universe, usually when people state 'he/she/it created the universe' - what they actually mean is they created planet earth and built the rest around it.

The simple fact that planet earth is just a planet in a solar system, inside a galaxy, revolving around a star - A star that is one of a billions in a galaxy in a universe filled of billions of other galaxy's.

A point no religious texts have even hinted at.

To state god built men, and designed the universe around men, I believe can only be accepted if that person as a very high sense of self importance, a fragile ego and is susceptable to mental programming in the form of fear tactics, designed around something absurd.

Case in point, make the thing irrational, make it hard to follow, make it seem confusing and people will believe it. Now if anyone can state 100% that what they read in any version of a bible makes sense is in truth lying, I believe it was designed to be confusing, to keep the person guessing, since faith, needs no proof, it is purley on the faith that what they are reading is in some parts rational but they simply fail to grasp the knowledge deep within, hence they need to have more faith, until they reach the level of fanticism where they see the truth in the words.

Hence - God, devil, or any other so called diety is nothing more than a sell-by-date diety - All diety's do not stand the test of time. That is a simple fact most religious poeple ignore.

For example the egyptians gods, where around alot longer than our new age fad ones - Still in the end they became nothing but pure fiction - We even make films about the greek gods, greek gods that at the time were around alot longer than our current ones - ones we watch on Movie screens in hollywood - Nothing more than a center piece for writers who keep those gods in existance - If it wasn't for the imagination of man - even these gods would be extinct.

Spare a thought for that when you watch a youtube video stating the music business is owned by the devil -

The devil is like milk and women - he/she/it get's sour with age.

 

[kingsam]

according the the creation museum...
aparently in the garden of eden humans and dinosaurs lived together - the dino were all vegetarians so didnt eat any humans then...

oh fvcking dear...!
epic FAIL

 

[kingsam]

THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html#Miller%27s_Experiment

1. Miller's Experiment
Stanley Miller, a graduate student in biochemistry, built the apparatus shown here. He filled it with

* water (H2O
* methane (CH4)
* ammonia (NH3) and
* hydrogen (H2)
* but no oxygen

He hypothesized that this mixture resembled the atmosphere of the early earth. (Some are not so sure.) The mixture was kept circulating by continuously boiling and then condensing the water.

The gases passed through a chamber containing two electrodes with a spark passing between them.

At the end of a week, Miller used paper chromatography to show that the flask now contained several amino acids as well as some other organic molecules.
In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried. Virtually all the small molecules that are associated with life have been formed:

* 17 of the 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis, and
* all the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis.
* But abiotic synthesis of ribose — and thus of nucleotides — has been much more difficult. However, success in synthesizing pyrimidine ribonucleotides under conditions that might have existed in the early earth has recently (Nature 14 May 2009) been reported.


2. Molecules from outer space?
The Murchison Meteorite
his meteorite, that fell near Murchison, Australia on 28 September 1969, turned out to contain a variety of organic molecules including:

* purines and pyrimidines
* polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons such as glycerol and glyceric acid. Sugars are polyols.
* the amino acids listed here. The amino acids and their relative proportions were quite similar to the products formed in Miller's experiments.

The question is: were these molecules simply terrestrial contaminants that got into the meteorite after it fell to earth.
Probably not:

* Some of the samples were collected on the same day it fell and subsequently handled with great care to avoid contamination.
* The polyols contained the isotopes carbon-13 and hydrogen-2 (deuterium) in greater amounts than found here on earth.
* The samples lacked certain amino acids that are found in all earthly proteins.
* Only L amino acids occur in earthly proteins, but the amino acids in the meteorite contain both D and L forms (although L forms were slightly more prevalent).

-----
SO... it is very easy for the building blocks of life to form, and they also exist in outer space...

 

[Trader]

THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html#Miller%27s_Experiment

1. Miller's Experiment
Stanley Miller, a graduate student in biochemistry, built the apparatus shown here. He filled it with

* water (H2O
* methane (CH4)
* ammonia (NH3) and
* hydrogen (H2)
* but no oxygen

He hypothesized that this mixture resembled the atmosphere of the early earth. (Some are not so sure.) The mixture was kept circulating by continuously boiling and then condensing the water.

The gases passed through a chamber containing two electrodes with a spark passing between them.

At the end of a week, Miller used paper chromatography to show that the flask now contained several amino acids as well as some other organic molecules.
In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried. Virtually all the small molecules that are associated with life have been formed:

* 17 of the 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis, and
* all the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis.
* But abiotic synthesis of ribose — and thus of nucleotides — has been much more difficult. However, success in synthesizing pyrimidine ribonucleotides under conditions that might have existed in the early earth has recently (Nature 14 May 2009) been reported.


2. Molecules from outer space?
The Murchison Meteorite
his meteorite, that fell near Murchison, Australia on 28 September 1969, turned out to contain a variety of organic molecules including:

* purines and pyrimidines
* polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons such as glycerol and glyceric acid. Sugars are polyols.
* the amino acids listed here. The amino acids and their relative proportions were quite similar to the products formed in Miller's experiments.

The question is: were these molecules simply terrestrial contaminants that got into the meteorite after it fell to earth.
Probably not:

* Some of the samples were collected on the same day it fell and subsequently handled with great care to avoid contamination.
* The polyols contained the isotopes carbon-13 and hydrogen-2 (deuterium) in greater amounts than found here on earth.
* The samples lacked certain amino acids that are found in all earthly proteins.
* Only L amino acids occur in earthly proteins, but the amino acids in the meteorite contain both D and L forms (although L forms were slightly more prevalent).

-----
SO... it is very easy for the building blocks of life to form, and they also exist in outer space...

Pray tell how do you get water (H2O) and methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2).

Where did that come from? Did it appear all of a sudden out of thin air?

 

[Guoy Darko]

Pray tell how do you get water (H2O) and methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2).

Where did that come from? Did it appear all of a sudden out of thin air?

Dude, take a chemistry lesson. You can also read the book 'How to build a habitable planet'.

 

[Trader]

THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html#Miller's_Experiment

1. Miller's Experiment
Stanley Miller, a graduate student in biochemistry, built the apparatus shown here. He filled it with

* water (H2O
* methane (CH4)
* ammonia (NH3) and
* hydrogen (H2)
* but no oxygen

He hypothesized that this mixture resembled the atmosphere of the early earth. (Some are not so sure.) The mixture was kept circulating by continuously boiling and then condensing the water.

The gases passed through a chamber containing two electrodes with a spark passing between them.

At the end of a week, Miller used paper chromatography to show that the flask now contained several amino acids as well as some other organic molecules.
In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried. Virtually all the small molecules that are associated with life have been formed:

* 17 of the 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis, and
* all the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis.
* But abiotic synthesis of ribose — and thus of nucleotides — has been much more difficult. However, success in synthesizing pyrimidine ribonucleotides under conditions that might have existed in the early earth has recently (Nature 14 May 2009) been reported.


2. Molecules from outer space?
The Murchison Meteorite
his meteorite, that fell near Murchison, Australia on 28 September 1969, turned out to contain a variety of organic molecules including:

* purines and pyrimidines
* polyols — compounds with hydroxyl groups on a backbone of 3 to 6 carbons such as glycerol and glyceric acid. Sugars are polyols.
* the amino acids listed here. The amino acids and their relative proportions were quite similar to the products formed in Miller's experiments.

The question is: were these molecules simply terrestrial contaminants that got into the meteorite after it fell to earth.
Probably not:

* Some of the samples were collected on the same day it fell and subsequently handled with great care to avoid contamination.
* The polyols contained the isotopes carbon-13 and hydrogen-2 (deuterium) in greater amounts than found here on earth.
* The samples lacked certain amino acids that are found in all earthly proteins.
* Only L amino acids occur in earthly proteins, but the amino acids in the meteorite contain both D and L forms (although L forms were slightly more prevalent).

-----
SO... it is very easy for the building blocks of life to form, and they also exist in outer space...

Pray tell how do you get water (H2O) and methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2).

Where did that come from? Did it appear all of a sudden out of thin air?

Dude, take a chemistry lesson. You can also read the book 'How to build a habitable planet'.

You haven't answered my question. Kingsam was basically saying: 'Who said humans were CREATED? Humans could have simply evolved from amino acids, and he went on to say how *easy* it is for amino acids to form, all you need is water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen.

But that does not solve anything. It just begs the question: 'Well where did the water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen come from?'

Did not a Creator create that?

And you might try to say: 'Well, it was always there.'

But do you really expect that answer to fly? If you find a watch on the ground, do you not ask yourself: 'Who was the watchmaker who CREATED this?'

You would NEVER in your right mind say: 'Oh this watch was always here eternally, there is no creator of this watch.'