ADN

Atheists suddenly "accepting" god is no sign that Evolutionist concepts are off, as much as a sign of them HAVING to change their views to accomodate their new found "strenght in Jesus". That means nothing, just like people being amazed at how they could have "survived" without god...after 40+ years of getting along JUST fine without it. Same with electric can openers...but I digress...
trashtalkr, unicellular organisms becoming multicellular IS "growth", you don't grow from egg to a big-ass egg...your cells multiply and through DNA are "assigned" specific functions in the body.
And again, the fact that humans can't recreate life, is in NO way indicative that some all powerful being did. I can't make diamonds in my kitchen, but time and pressure can...unless of course....you state that god did it, but that's more of an opinion, really.
I also would find it MUCH more pleasant to think of an all loving being playing legos with molecules rather than try to even absorb how much time has actually passed since the universe as we know it took shape. Odd that you wouldn't take that into account when referring to simple molecules coming to rest in ways that would allow life to begin.
Nature always has found a way, the same way water carves solid stone and sculpts it. God?...sure if ya want, but I'm talking about time, big numbers, and enrgy in constant flux. Is my scientific standpoint solid and flawless?...no!, it's work in progress as any science is. I just can't subscribe to fix-all answers that require an unprovable, untestable solution. You're right, I can't use science to dismantle the god argument...how could I?
But miracles and super-powers are best left for movies.

The ability for us to determine right and wrong proves Intelligent Design, for a conscience is one thing that cannot evolve, even if you think it can..for how does giving your life up for a friend go with "survival of the fittest"?

But we are not talking about that so...


Ok, first prollem is Something cant come from nothing. Athiests counter this with 'well where did God come from?', decent point, but there is an infinite difference between Supernatural and Natural..Supernatural cannot always be explained..ppl use it as a cop-out, but still, we will never understand God fully..but this isnt a very strong arguement factually, so I will move on to the good stuff..

PROBLEM #1: Where did life come from?

Life cannot come from nowhere. In the 1950's Stanley Miller did an experiment in which he simulated the earths primitive atmosphere and shot electricity through it. The goal of this was to show lightning could create amino acids (building blocks for life). And guess what? He succeeded! BUT, in 1980, NASA researchers showed that the earths primitive atmosphere was not made of the hydrogen, ammonia, and methane that Miller used. Instead, it was nitrogen, water, and co2, which would ABSOLUTELY not produce the same results. Basically, the deck was stacked in Millers favor so he could prove evolution was true. Scientists have still not figured out a logical way that amino acids first arrived on our planet.

PROBLEM #2: But even if they did somehow...

The odds of them forming a protein are absurdly high. Basically, to assemble a cell, you start with amino acids. They come in 80 types, but only 20 are found in living organisms. The trick is to isolate the right amino acids in the right sequence in order to produce a protein molecule. Also, an equal number of amino acids are right and left handed. Only left handed ones work in living matter. Now you have to assemble all of these in the right order. It would be like jamming on the keyboard and hoping to come out with a term paper. Not impossible, but next to it (literally), if it was just by chance. But if there was an Intelligence behind it, it wouldnt be too difficult.

PROBLEM #3: And if somehow all this worked out..

Ok, so somehow, by fluke all this works out. 100 amino acids lined up perfectly and formed a protein (even though we dont know how the amino acids got here and that they defied breathtaking odds to assemble a protein). A protein cell is not life. You have to bring together about 200 of these protein molecules in just the right functions to form a living cell. Highly unlikely (obvious understatement).

PROBLEM #4 And then there's DNA..

I wont get into this too much since it is way too complicated, but basically forming DNA is 100X more harder and complex than forming a protein..which, as you know now, is next to impossible..

Summary..what I just talked about, in addition to the lack of evidence, in addition to how evolution is being looked down upon more as our technology increases (Darwin predicted the opposite), and the fact that Darwin admitted himself that life could not have come to be without a Divine interaction..makes a pretty weak case for chance and a strong case for an Intelligent Designer. It takes more faith to be an honest scientist that believes evolution than to believe in the works of a Supreme Being

Doesnt prove anything, but gives a new perspective, eh? /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

^^
Bravo.... =D>

Beautiful illustration of the keyboard and the term paper, quite awesome...

The kicker:
QUOTEDarwin admitted himself that life could not have come to be without a Divine interaction

Isn't DARWIN like the father of the Evolutionist standpoint...? How odd is it that he would say that...

My point has always been...Call it what you want...Lord God, Monica Bellucci, or the Cat In The Hat, there is a stimuli that exists for the sole purpose of interacting with energy and producing life...I call it Lord God because that is what it means to me...And I can assign to it the properties so I choose (Dont' get me on the relative kick again /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />) You can believe what you want...I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything...We were simply having a spirited debate on logic...

I'm pretty cozy w/my views...

I never said Evolution doesn't occur, that is crazy...Of course it does...But it is not Adaptation, and vice versa...And as Deeje said, there is more than enough evidence to support intelligent design, even more so, than others...

I mean, some shit you just can't argue with..!

Stanley miller's experiment was not "fixed" if that's what you're suggesting. The experiment was based on the information available at the time.

The theories might have changed, along with what is believed to have existed in that "early earth". However, I thought that creationists refute was that "organic compounds could not come from inorganic matter". As I understand it, the experiment has been reproduced under different conditions and the result has been the same, the formation of amino acids, essential to both nucleic acids and pigments like hemoglobin.

I also managed to catch a bit o' readin' about the earlier life froms like Archaea , that although, realtively simple...are both ancient AND pretty much the baddest mu'fukkas we got goin' in this here ship.

Now, I mention these because the argument is that the odds are stacked against the more complex formations, but again, it is a natural occurence that "if you wait long enough, something will happen". You can do a number of in-home tests (that's right, no need to strive for Nobel glory) that involve electricity and solid matter being arranged to a path of least resistance, creating patterns, instantly. Stands to reason that a few billion years could (now I'm not saying it DID happen....but please, don't tell me it's impossible) be conducive to suitable patterns in both molecules and information.
Chemical reactions today probably follow the same laws as"yesterday", no?. For some, this might seem impossible without some uber-Geppetto.

Readily available matter and most importantly, an inexhaustible energy source, no competition, and a "couple of years" time, energy in constant flux. Well, whatever....as AYHJA said "I'm pretty cozy with my views".
But brutha man....

gravity is some shit I can't argue with. All-loving and all-bored super-creators?...well, after 3 forums and what...7 pages later? I'd say this shit is ripe for pickin. It IS kinda gettin' old now, tho, i'll admit that.

I know I promised this awhile ago, but times have been crazy...well here it is:

Natural change in living things is limited. Organisms stay true to type. No matter what changes organisms have, the fact is, dogs are still dogs and horses are still horses. None of the changes have created a novel kind of organism.

Take a rose garden, for example, there are hundreds of different breeds of roses but they are still roses. They didn't change type.

Naturalism can't deny that all observed change is limited; what the theory suggests is that over time, these minor variations add up to create major changes-the vast changes necessary to go from a primeval one-celled organism to bees and butterflies and little boys. Even Darwin's own pigeon breeding demonstrates the limits of biological change.

In the skillful hands of a breeder, the pigeon can be transformed into a fantail, with feathers like a Chinese fan, it can become a puter, with huge crop bulging under its beak, etc. Yet despite this range of diversity, all pigeons are descendents of the common rock pigeon, the ordinary gray birds that flock the city parks. All the pigeons remained pigeons, and Darwin observed and recognized that. They represent cyclical change in gene frequencies but no new genetic information.

Darwin then said that over time change would be virtually unlimited. It's a bold speculation that he made. Neither Darwin nor anyone else have ever actually witnessed evolution occurring. He assumed that the process being extrapolated will continue at a steady rate.

Centuries of experiments have shown that the change in breeding does not continue at a steady rate from generation to generation. Instead, change is rapid at first, then levels off, and eventually reaches a limit that breeders cannot cross.

This happens b/c once all the genes for a particular trait have been selected, breading can go no farther. Breeding shuffles and selects among the existing genes in the gene pool, combining and recombining them, much as you would shuffle and deal a deck of cards. But breeding does not create new genes, any more than shuffling cards create new cards. A bird cannot be bred to grow fur; a mouse cannot brow feathers; a pig cannot grow wings.

As breeders keep up the selection pressure, the organism grows weeker until it finally becomes sterile and dies out. This is the bane of modern farming: the highly bred cows and chickens produce more milk and eggs, but they are also much more prone to disease and sterility. There is a natural barrier that no amount of breeding is able to cross.

Also, when an organism is no longer subject to selective pressure, it tends to revert to its original type. Left to themselves, the offspring of the fancy pigeons that so charmed Darwin will revert to the wild rock pigeon.

The natural tendency in living things is not to continue changing indefinitely but to stay close to the original type.

I'm back just for this. You said I didn't have any scientific evidence and you said this:

QUOTE(trashtalkr)Where have you seen a unicellular organism become multicellular. It has never happened. If you consider birth, that's growth and not changing from unicellular to multicellular. That's like saying you've seen an E. coli baterium change spontaneously change from a one-celled organism to a multi-cellular \"super\" virus. Never has happened and never will.

http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/171545

I know you will dismiss this somehow. Who cares if a bunch of algae decided to huddle to not get killed by protozoa? It was in a lab, that's not nature? The fact is, I don't care. I'd prefer to drop this and run like a thief in the night.

QUOTE(Cicada)I'm back just for this.

What a great line for a signature..!

I'm adding a poll to this thread, just so we can keep track...Cicada, I can't WAIT to see the first topic you start here...It's going to be so much fun..!

QUOTE(Cicada)I know you will dismiss this somehow. Who cares if a bunch of algae decided to huddle to not get killed by protozoa? It was in a lab, that's not nature? The fact is, I don't care. I'd prefer to drop this and run like a thief in the night.

I am going to dismiss this because of a fact that happens in labs-not the fact that it was a lab itself. In labs, they don't get the same chemicals that is out in the world. Also, after each step, they use a different set of atoms. protons, ameba, etc (whatever they use). That really doesn't happen in real life and that's why they can't survive outside of a lab. They don't get the full experience in the lab. They pretty much "cheat the system."

I don't want you to run. I'm enjoying our discussion. It's always fun to hear another point of view....that's what this site is all about. Stay about and be heard!

Here's something that I meant to bring up something less theory and more fact...

How does the evolutionist argument deal with the symmetry of the universe, in relation to geometric shapes and and numbers, such as Phi, or "The Golden Ratio"..? I reckon that's sheer coincidence, huh..?

It's not coincidence, it's our very human necessity to quantify and create patterns. If we can organize it, we can break it down in smaller fractions, make it mangeable, easier to deal with. Our existance seems to be quite unsettling if we don't feel we have some form of guardian, or order. Mathematical calculations work best on solid structures, not our ever-changing environment. Certain frequencies produce geometric patterns in sand particles, wind does the same...as I mentioned before, in-home experiments with pellets and electricity will form patterns. The path of least resistance will create "structures". Coincidence? no, not at all...intelligent design?, that depends on what you do on Sundays.