From the ICR’s URCall series of videos, hosted by Markus Lloyd. (link)
Transcript:
DNA, RNA, and proteins are “biomolecules” which, together, are essential for life. DNA and RNA are needed to make protein. Protein and RNA are needed to make more DNA. DNA and protein are needed to make RNA. So – which came first? Evolution doesn’t have an answer. But creation scientists do.
And that answer is, of course, “God did it.”
Here’s a slightly different question: how do we get metal? The answer of course involves mining, but have you ever noticed that the trucks and bulldozers and detonators used in this process all also require metal in some way? A conundrum emerges: how did it all start? Did Lloyd’s god give Adam and Eve a Caterpillar truck and a stick of dynamite when they left Eden? I don’t think so.
The road to the correct solution requires you to realise at least these two things: first, that technology progresses, meaning that the metal used to make the truck could have been mined via a different tool, superseded by the new transport; and second that minerals were a lot more accessible before we grabbed all the bits of iron etc that once lay near or at the surface. The upshot of all this is that the self-reliant processes used today are not the be all and end all when it comes to discovering their true origins.
The ICR’s “creation scientists” then are not prepared to do their job and actually investigate how life arose, beyond making these simplistic and flawed arguments. Other’s are a bit more rigorous: the RNA world hypothesis comes from the observation that RNA is actually capable of doing the other two molecules’ jobs, albeit not as well; metabolism first, on the other hand, notes that you can do some fairly interesting things before you need any of the three at all.
Someday we may know which of our many ideas is correct, but we wont do so by approaching the world with blinders on.
Eye on the ICR 
That is a tippy top analogy
http://www.icr.org/article/8174/
From the press release flagged at footnote 3:
“Collating data from seven GPS stations situated across the Northern Peninsula, the team found the rebound was so fast that the upper mantle viscosity – or resistance to flow – had to be at least ten times lower than previously thought for the region and much lower than the rest of Antarctica.”
Thus this rapid upward movement of the mantle appears to be a localised effect in the northern part of the Antarctic peninsula. Whereas, based on their previous claims, the ICR need evidence of a non-localised polar (‘recent’) ice age following a ‘worldwide’ flood.
The reference to a 1994 paper about Hudson Bay appears to be somewhat of a red herring.
“Clearly rebound rates were faster in the past—undoubtedly fast enough to accommodate even the Hudson Bay’s remarkable rebound within the biblical timeframe.” It’s clear to me that Thomas is making up his own ‘facts’ to suit his ideological narrative (and possibly ignoring the unusual and possibly unprecedented rate of Antarctic ice melt since 1995).
The ICR cannot show Antarctic Peninsula warming at the same rate (or faster) as between 1995 and 2014 over the past 4,500 years. And I think they need to because as the press release states: “The mantle below the Earth’s crust in the Antarctic Peninsula is flowing much faster than expected, probably due to subtle changes in temperature or chemical composition. This means it can flow more easily and so responds much more quickly to the lightening load hundreds of miles above it, changing the shape of the land.” The load above is being lightened currently due to rapid local ice melt.
I don’t claim to be an expert on this topic. Interested to read any other thoughts!