In a search, I came across the site regarding the man, who initiated
the $10,000,000 prize, an Engineer named Perry Marshall and his
instructions as to how THE $10000000 PRIZE can be won.

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

On 3/20/2024 8:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> In  a search, I came across the site regarding the man, who initiated
> the $10,000,000 prize, an Engineer named Perry Marshall and his
> instructions as to how THE $10000000 PRIZE can be won.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhpPjmMsKIk
>

The engineer has the wrong idea of what the issue is. Life isn't the
code. Molecular chemistry evolved the code because it was a more
efficient means to self replicate. There were likely simple self
replicators before there was a genetic code. Self replicators were
probably macromolecules that could synthesize more copies of themselves.

It sounds like the whole thing is based on a false premise. The initial
information that life relied on was simply the chemistry of their
physical selves. A macromolecule like a peptide chain may fold into a
shape and have a surface and atomic structure exposed to the environment
that will do things like dehydrate two molecules to create a chemical
bond. The information is in the physical nature of the macromolecule.
A protein with a certain sequence of amino acids will fold into a
structure that can facilitate other chemical reactions. The first self
replicators could make copies of themselves. They would not have had to
perfectly replicate, in fact imperfect replication would allow them to
evolve more functional variants of themselves.

This type of information is required to enable the evolution of a
genetic code.

Ron Okimoto

RonO wrote:
> On 3/20/2024 8:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> In  a search, I came across the site regarding the man, who initiated
>> the $10,000,000 prize, an Engineer named Perry Marshall and his
>> instructions as to how THE $10000000 PRIZE can be won.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhpPjmMsKIk
>>
>
> The engineer has the wrong idea of what the issue is.  Life isn't the
> code.  Molecular chemistry evolved the code because it was a more
> efficient means to self replicate.  There were likely simple self
> replicators before there was a genetic code.  Self replicators were
> probably macromolecules that could synthesize more copies of themselves.
>
> It sounds like the whole thing is based on a false premise.
>
I think, maybe you are wrong! One of the leading researchers in origin
of life experments, Dr. Lee Cronin thinks he can win the $10,000,000 prize.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njuso5A2jts
>
The initial
> information that life relied on was simply the chemistry of their
> physical selves.  A macromolecule like a peptide chain may fold into a
> shape and have a surface and atomic structure exposed to the environment
> that will do things like dehydrate two molecules to create a chemical
> bond.  The information is in the physical nature of the macromolecule. A
> protein with a certain sequence of amino acids will fold into a
> structure that can facilitate other chemical reactions.  The first self
> replicators could make copies of themselves.  They would not have had to
> perfectly replicate, in fact imperfect replication would allow them to
> evolve more functional variants of themselves.
>
> This type of information is required to enable the evolution of a
> genetic code.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

On 3/22/2024 7:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>> On 3/20/2024 8:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> In  a search, I came across the site regarding the man, who initiated
>>> the $10,000,000 prize, an Engineer named Perry Marshall and his
>>> instructions as to how THE $10000000 PRIZE can be won.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhpPjmMsKIk
>>>
>>
>> The engineer has the wrong idea of what the issue is.  Life isn't the
>> code.  Molecular chemistry evolved the code because it was a more
>> efficient means to self replicate.  There were likely simple self
>> replicators before there was a genetic code.  Self replicators were
>> probably macromolecules that could synthesize more copies of themselves.
>>
>> It sounds like the whole thing is based on a false premise.
> >
> I think, maybe you are wrong! One of the leading researchers in origin
> of life experments, Dr. Lee Cronin thinks he can win the $10,000,000 prize.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njuso5A2jts

It doesn't matter how many people think that they can win. It doesn't
change the fact that the guy that initiated the the whole thing doesn't
understand what the problem is. The guy focused on the genetic code,
but the genetic code is not the basis of life on earth. The information
(biological code) that life depends on is the various molecular
structures that can be made on earth and in our carbon based lifeforms.
The genetic code is only the means that life evolved to replicate some
of that chemical-structural information efficiently and with a high
degree of accuracy.

You can define life as something that requires a genetic code, but that
doesn't mean that there wasn't something "living" that existed before
there was a genetic DNA code.

Ron Okimoto

> >
>  The initial
>> information that life relied on was simply the chemistry of their
>> physical selves.  A macromolecule like a peptide chain may fold into a
>> shape and have a surface and atomic structure exposed to the
>> environment that will do things like dehydrate two molecules to create
>> a chemical bond.  The information is in the physical nature of the
>> macromolecule. A protein with a certain sequence of amino acids will
>> fold into a structure that can facilitate other chemical reactions.
>> The first self replicators could make copies of themselves.  They
>> would not have had to perfectly replicate, in fact imperfect
>> replication would allow them to evolve more functional variants of
>> themselves.
>>
>> This type of information is required to enable the evolution of a
>> genetic code.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>

RonO wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 7:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2024 8:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> In  a search, I came across the site regarding the man, who
>>>> initiated the $10,000,000 prize, an Engineer named Perry Marshall
>>>> and his instructions as to how THE $10000000 PRIZE can be won.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhpPjmMsKIk
>>>>
>>>
>>> The engineer has the wrong idea of what the issue is.  Life isn't the
>>> code.  Molecular chemistry evolved the code because it was a more
>>> efficient means to self replicate.  There were likely simple self
>>> replicators before there was a genetic code.  Self replicators were
>>> probably macromolecules that could synthesize more copies of themselves.
>>>
>>> It sounds like the whole thing is based on a false premise.
>>  >
>> I think, maybe you are wrong! One of the leading researchers in origin
>> of life experments, Dr. Lee Cronin thinks he can win the $10,000,000
>> prize.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njuso5A2jts
>
> It doesn't matter how many people think that they can win.  It doesn't
> change the fact that the guy that initiated the the whole thing doesn't
> understand what the problem is.
>
Have you considered, it's you that's not understanding? It occurs to me
that since Lee Cronin, one of the leading researchers in the quest for
the explanation of how life began takes the challenge seriously, there
must be something you and a number of others on TO are missing.
This is the challenge obviously is the origin of life. No one knows. But
there are several hyppothesus
Then latest is heat vent at the ocean floor
or
life originated somehow on or in clay.
or
it came from outer space.
This hypothesis pushes the origin of life completely out of bounds.

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.

The guy focused on the genetic code,
> but the genetic code is not the basis of life on earth.  The information
> (biological code) that life depends on is the various molecular
> structures that can be made on earth and in our carbon based lifeforms.
> The genetic code is only the means that life evolved to replicate some
> of that chemical-structural information efficiently and with a high
> degree of accuracy.
>
> You can define life as something that requires a genetic code, but that
> doesn't mean that there wasn't something "living" that existed before
> there was a genetic DNA code.
>

>
> Ron Okimoto
>
>>  >
>>   The initial
>>> information that life relied on was simply the chemistry of their
>>> physical selves.  A macromolecule like a peptide chain may fold into
>>> a shape and have a surface and atomic structure exposed to the
>>> environment that will do things like dehydrate two molecules to
>>> create a chemical bond.  The information is in the physical nature of
>>> the macromolecule. A protein with a certain sequence of amino acids
>>> will fold into a structure that can facilitate other chemical
>>> reactions. The first self replicators could make copies of
>>> themselves.  They would not have had to perfectly replicate, in fact
>>> imperfect replication would allow them to evolve more functional
>>> variants of themselves.
>>>
>>> This type of information is required to enable the evolution of a
>>> genetic code.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>
>

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:

<https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx#>

After all, the Bible tells me so.

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

On 3/23/2024 8:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 7:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/2024 8:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> In  a search, I came across the site regarding the man, who
>>>>> initiated the $10,000,000 prize, an Engineer named Perry Marshall
>>>>> and his instructions as to how THE $10000000 PRIZE can be won.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhpPjmMsKIk
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The engineer has the wrong idea of what the issue is.  Life isn't
>>>> the code.  Molecular chemistry evolved the code because it was a
>>>> more efficient means to self replicate.  There were likely simple
>>>> self replicators before there was a genetic code.  Self replicators
>>>> were probably macromolecules that could synthesize more copies of
>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like the whole thing is based on a false premise.
>>>  >
>>> I think, maybe you are wrong! One of the leading researchers in
>>> origin of life experments, Dr. Lee Cronin thinks he can win the
>>> $10,000,000 prize.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njuso5A2jts
>>
>> It doesn't matter how many people think that they can win.  It doesn't
>> change the fact that the guy that initiated the the whole thing
>> doesn't understand what the problem is.
> >
> Have you considered, it's you that's not understanding? It occurs to me
> that since Lee Cronin, one of the leading researchers in the quest for
> the explanation of how life began takes the challenge seriously, there
> must be something you and a number of others on TO are missing.
> This is the challenge obviously is the origin of life. No one knows. But
> there are several hyppothesus
> Then latest is heat vent at the ocean floor
> or
> life originated somehow on or in clay.
> or
> it came from outer space.
> This hypothesis pushes the origin of life completely out of bounds.
>
> 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.

The guy was just wrong. There is no doubt about that. There is
information in the macromolecules created by the normal chemistry
involving the existing elements. It was this information that made the
evolution of the genetic code possible. The DNA code is only a means to
replicate the information in peptide macromolecules efficiently and
accurately.

There were likely self replicators before RNA existed. The RNA world
did not require a DNA genetic code, nor the replicators that likely
existed before the RNA world. The information that they were
replicating existed in the structure of the macromolecules themselves.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
>
>  The guy focused on the genetic code,
>> but the genetic code is not the basis of life on earth.  The
>> information (biological code) that life depends on is the various
>> molecular structures that can be made on earth and in our carbon based
>> lifeforms. The genetic code is only the means that life evolved to
>> replicate some of that chemical-structural information efficiently and
>> with a high degree of accuracy.
>>
>> You can define life as something that requires a genetic code, but
>> that doesn't mean that there wasn't something "living" that existed
>> before there was a genetic DNA code.
> >
>
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>  >
>>>   The initial
>>>> information that life relied on was simply the chemistry of their
>>>> physical selves.  A macromolecule like a peptide chain may fold into
>>>> a shape and have a surface and atomic structure exposed to the
>>>> environment that will do things like dehydrate two molecules to
>>>> create a chemical bond.  The information is in the physical nature
>>>> of the macromolecule. A protein with a certain sequence of amino
>>>> acids will fold into a structure that can facilitate other chemical
>>>> reactions. The first self replicators could make copies of
>>>> themselves.  They would not have had to perfectly replicate, in fact
>>>> imperfect replication would allow them to evolve more functional
>>>> variants of themselves.
>>>>
>>>> This type of information is required to enable the evolution of a
>>>> genetic code.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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. 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.
>

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

Ron Dean wrote:

> RonO wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 7:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/2024 8:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> In  a search, I came across the site regarding the man, who
>>>>> initiated the $10,000,000 prize, an Engineer named Perry Marshall
>>>>> and his instructions as to how THE $10000000 PRIZE can be won.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhpPjmMsKIk
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The engineer has the wrong idea of what the issue is.  Life isn't the
>>>> code.  Molecular chemistry evolved the code because it was a more
>>>> efficient means to self replicate.  There were likely simple self
>>>> replicators before there was a genetic code.  Self replicators were
>>>> probably macromolecules that could synthesize more copies of themselves.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like the whole thing is based on a false premise.
>>>  >
>>> I think, maybe you are wrong! One of the leading researchers in origin
>>> of life experments, Dr. Lee Cronin thinks he can win the $10,000,000
>>> prize.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njuso5A2jts
>>
>> It doesn't matter how many people think that they can win.  It doesn't
>> change the fact that the guy that initiated the the whole thing doesn't
>> understand what the problem is.
> >
> Have you considered, it's you that's not understanding? It occurs to me
> that since Lee Cronin, one of the leading researchers in the quest for
> the explanation of how life began takes the challenge seriously, there
> must be something you and a number of others on TO are missing.
> This is the challenge obviously is the origin of life. No one knows. But
> there are several hyppothesus
> Then latest is heat vent at the ocean floor
> or
> life originated somehow on or in clay.
> or
> it came from outer space.
> This hypothesis pushes the origin of life completely out of bounds.

> 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?

difficult to say, but one possible contender is from Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) e.g. here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747172/

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.

That may sound convincing to a 4-year-old who just discovered the power
of the word "why" when asked repetitively for over an hour. For everybody
else not so much. We have e.g. excellent knowledge of how modern English
evolved from Middle English, but already much less detailed ideas of how
Middle English evolved Old English, and even less how Old English
evolved from Ingvaeonic. For the origins of Ingvaeonic, we have to rely on
proto-Germanic, which is entirely a theoretical reconstruction, which
is even more true for its ancestors, proto-indo -European, etc And at
some point, evidence will simply run out and the reconstruction becomes
somewhat between mere speculation to "even impossible" to speculate - but
none of this lack of "foundation" has any bearing on what we know about the
evolution of the language of Shakespeare to that of Bob Dylan.

Similarly, we have excellent knowledge of the settlement of the northern
part of America a by settlers from Britain, less knowledge of the
settlement of Britain by the Saxons, and the Saxons "suddenly appear
in the historical record" at around 200 AD, but without knowing much
of who they were or where they came from. Nonetheless, nobody argues that
means they popped fully formed into existence in Northern Germany on a
a fine spring day in 142 AD, or that our difficulties finding their ancestors
has any bearing whatsoever on our knowledge of the Pilgrim fathers ff.

With all historical research, we will run out of data at some point
or another. In some disciplines earlier, in some later. That's what
we should expect, and it affects in no shape or form those things
that occurred later and that we can reconstruct

> The guy focused on the genetic code,
>> but the genetic code is not the basis of life on earth.  The information
>> (biological code) that life depends on is the various molecular
>> structures that can be made on earth and in our carbon based lifeforms.
>> The genetic code is only the means that life evolved to replicate some
>> of that chemical-structural information efficiently and with a high
>> degree of accuracy.
>>
>> You can define life as something that requires a genetic code, but that
>> doesn't mean that there wasn't something "living" that existed before
>> there was a genetic DNA code.
> >

>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>  >
>>>   The initial
>>>> information that life relied on was simply the chemistry of their
>>>> physical selves.  A macromolecule like a peptide chain may fold into
>>>> a shape and have a surface and atomic structure exposed to the
>>>> environment that will do things like dehydrate two molecules to
>>>> create a chemical bond.  The information is in the physical nature of
>>>> the macromolecule. A protein with a certain sequence of amino acids
>>>> will fold into a structure that can facilitate other chemical
>>>> reactions. The first self replicators could make copies of
>>>> themselves.  They would not have had to perfectly replicate, in fact
>>>> imperfect replication would allow them to evolve more functional
>>>> variants of themselves.
>>>>
>>>> This type of information is required to enable the evolution of a
>>>> genetic code.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>>
>>>
>>

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

jillery wrote:
> 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.
>
There are Christians who are evolutionist. But since I did not
specifically speak in terms of evolutionist, scientist or Christians,
what I wrote then should apply to who ever you might like to apply it.
>
>> 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
>

jillery wrote:
> 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.
>
I've never thought all evolutionist are atheist, You are probably
reading this into something I wrote that I don't believe and never meant
to say. Furthermore, you haven't shown where I said all evolutionist are
atheist. I believe that there are some people, but not all, who because
of their acceptance of evolution became atheist.
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>