[Krsqk]

I don't know much about Big bang theory, so I'm not going to attempt to answer these, but can you answer this: Where did God come from?

God, by definition, is uncreated. I'm not saying that's scientific (i.e., proveable).

I believe labs have proven that amino acids and other complex organic molecules can be formed by non-biological processes (ie primordial soup).

First, it takes carefully controlled production to create only left-handed amino acids (the kind in living organisms). Equal distributions of left- and right-handed amino acids form in unconstrained production. Second, amino acids and organic molecules don't equal life, and it hasn't been shown that they will combine to form life once that's produced. Third, there's a vast difference between the conditions in a lab and in a storm-tossed primordial soup.

Perfectly organised? Perfect for what? Something cannot be perfect unless it has a purpose to be perfect for. I believe there is no purpose and that space is just chaotic. Matter clumps together into star systems, galaxies etc as a result of physical laws.

You're telling me there's no organization in nature? Wouldn't random processes result in random results? Wouldn't an explosion like the Big Bang result in an equal distribution of matter across the universe?

You're right, a creature looking after number one probably would live longer than one that makes the effort to reproduce, but its ancestors aren't going to be the ones running the Earth in 600 million years, are they? Remember, celibacy is not heridtary.

No, the point of the question is whether survival is an individual or a species-wide instinct. Do organisms try to save themselves or save their kind?

I don't how your metaphor is relevant. The possibilities for variety within genetic code are staggering- remember, our DNA is something like 50% the same as that of a banana. Your parents combined their genetic code to create a new (potentially) improved variety of themselves.

And our blood chemistry is closest to that of a butter bean. So which one is a closer relative? Which people alive are most closely related to either bananas or beans? If all organisms have similar DNA, they might be related, or they just might have been created using an efficient design.

Not necessarily. Parallel evolution.

Not necessarily? The question was could similar design mean common creator.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The theory of evolution is designed to explain just that.

Natural selection keeps a species around the average or norm. How 1) did so much genetic variation survive? and 2) did we evolve extra chromosomes and genes?

I'm skipping a bunch of questions I don;t knwo enough about. I'm curious as to why you're picking specifically on whales and sea horses. What did they ever do to you?

I was bitten by a sea horse when I was 3. Those animals are examples of organisms which seem contrary to their environment. What sort of conditions would make them evolve like that (i.e., air-breathing but water-dwelling)?

Wouldn't it have been easier just to ask "how does stuff evolve?", rather than asking "how does a, b, c, d, e... evolve?" See my previous paragraph for my own, layman's understanding of evolution.

Because the things in each list require each other to function--they comprise an entire system. How did vital organs develop? If you need it and don't have it, you're dead--by definition. How did creatures get along with their digestive systems before they developed a resistance to digestive juices? Or if the resistance developed first, what was the trigger for that development?

For example, take the bombardier beetle. He combines two chemicals which instantly create a steaming jet he directs at his attackers. He has a third chemical to keep them from reacting inside his body, and a fourth chemical to counteract the third and allow the reaction. Which of the four chemicals (or the outlet, for that matter) evolved first? How did he survive before the entire system was developed?

Why does symbiosis defy evolution?

They have to develop simultaneously, and even then, what would happen while they're developing? Why wouldn't the original creature develop something to fix its need instead of a secondary creature developing something to meet it?

Because it is an explanation and because it can be proved. If evolution was as unproveable as you say, I'm sure someone would have noticed by now.

They do notice it. They say things like, "We believe," "We think," "Maybe," "Our best guess is," etc. But they still teach that it's unquestionably proven.

By none of those, but by EVOLUTION, which is neither chance or design (although randomness does play a part).

Randomness and chance are flip sides of a coin. You can't separate them at will. Now you're sounding like EVOLUTION is some mysterious Force or Will or Prime Mover which directs events. Another God, maybe?

I disagree completely. You ever see an elephant or a gorilla that has lost it's offspring or mate? It seems to me that that social, animal bond could easily develop into complex human empathic responses (mercy, guilt) as we becasme civilised.

Compassion and mercy are weaknesses when the goal is survival. Why do ruthless dictators gain more power than men with scruples? Because they stop at nothing to advance over the competition. Evolution reduces life to a struggle to survive, where softness has no place with the winners.

I would have said "that's impossible, they're extinct." If you told me the same thing today that you have one I'd say "That must be a very high pressure aquarium." Then I'd say "Did you know that 50 years ago these were thought to be extinct?" What's your point?

No, 50 years ago, they were "known" to be extinct, according to any scientist you would have asked.

I don't understand this question. Are you talking about hydrogen being the only element being produced by the big bang and all other elements being the result of stellar processes? I don;t have a problem with that theory.

Any proof? Any evidence of elements naturally changing to new elements? Or is it just another unproven theory?

I ask again, where did God come from? What raw materials did it use to fashion the universe? What was there first?

Again, my worldview states a supernatural origin. Any God worth his salt would be able to create something from nothing--that's part of being God.

And so yes, my answers are based on faith, but it is faith that what I have said is based on scientific, provable facts.

And my faith is based on an omnipotent God Who recorded what He did.

Not in 7 days, no. As much as anything else, I can't see that a God would bother doing it that way. Seems to me a far more elegant solution would be to kick off something like the Big bang and let it all unfold...

And now man is the expert on how God would think? Why would He do it that way if someone might come along and say it all happened by natural processes?

Well, quite frankly, that's your problem and not mine. If you could show me an undeniably genuine sticker on the underside of the universe with "God was here" written on it, then I would accept your viewpoint and be happy that a) eternal life is a reality after all and that b) God has a sense of humour. Until that happens, I just have to plod along with what can be proven. I have to say I would *like* to believe - it must be very comforting to believe in all that, but belief isn't something I can just switch on and off.

No, belief isn't a switch, but it is a choice. Either you choose to believe in God, or you choose to believe in evolution.

Well it all comes down to your definition of fact, doesn't it?

No, there's only one definition of fact...

Let me put it this way: You say evolution can't be proved, and so it can't be taught as fact. I say it can be proved, but even if I'm wrong, that doesn't make you right. Your theory is certyainly not more provable than evolution, so maybe we should be teaching all these little kids about Buddhism.

...Which is no more provable than either of these.

How widespread would religion be today if not for this one?

Religions spread by conVersion, not just teaching. Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the US?

What is this list about. AAre these items supposed to disprove evolution? I don't think they do

No, they're former proofs for evolution, all disproven or frauds, which still are taught in many textbooks.

How would you feel if your kids came home from school quoting the Qu'ran and saying that Allah was the only true God?

I'm not advocating teaching creation as fact, either. Let the kids see the evidence for both and then decide for themselves. That's the politically correct thing to do, isn't it?