[Krsqk]

Lots more to reply to...

Terran C: Let's not get into the results of religion or evolution. I think you'd say Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler weren't true followers of evolution, just as I'd say your examples aren't true followers of their religion. Unless you want to go there, too.

No one, even religious people, can know where matter came from. There are many theories on this, of course.

No one claims to be able to know. Creationists believe it was created; evolutionists (in general) believe it is eternal.

(re: scientific laws) They did not come from anywhere. They are not some entity floating out there that had to be created/generated. Well actually, the laws were written by various scientists over the years. But, the forces behind those laws have always been in existence.

Now forces sound more like the Force. I get the idea that the answer for anything dealing with stellar evolution, etc, is "It's always been there." Doesn't sound too scientific (i.e., verifiable) to me. Sounds more like a belief or faith.

The Earth was not completely covered in perpetual storms when life evolved from primordial goo. All it takes is a cliff-face to block the wind, and there is plenty of stable goo for the organci molecules to form. More complex molecules form out of the basic ones, and this has been proven in laboratory experiments.

I defy you to tell me what was in the primordial goo or what the conditions on earth were like. That's unverifiable. To come up with some soup in a laboratory, hook up a spark plug, come out with some amino acids, and then assume that you somehow must have hit on the combination that existed is unscientific. To say, "Well, it must have existed--after all, here we are!" is so far from logic that it's not worth debunking. Also, there is a world of difference between organic molecules and life. The "simplest" cell is orders of magnitudes more complex than the most complex organic molecule. (I know. Given enough time and the random chances of enough of the right molecules landing in the right places in this worldwide primordial goo...)

(re: reproduction)Life never "learned" this. That implies that something taught reproduction to basic carbohydrates and proteins and such,which it didnt. Reproduction involves the formation of complex organic molecules from basic elements. This happened in the puddle of goo, and it simply continued to happen within the basic organisms that evovled.

There is a world of difference between continued production of organic molecules and cellular reproduction.

Itself, of course. Many lifeforms are capable of sexual reproduction with themselves.

Given the random chance that it somehow developed with the ability to reproduce with itself. It's probably just as likely that it randomly evolved in close proximity to another cell with which it could reproduce.

You do realize that the Design Argument has been proven inadequate by people such as Hume, right?

Hume's argument stretches the premises beyond their logical extension, by cleverly wording the design argument. No creationist would say that man's creation and God's creation are like results from like effects. If the universe is without edge and without center (as is commonly said), then God would have created an infinite creation. Man never comes close to infinite creation. In fact, man never comes close to the complexity found in "simple" organisms. Given enough time and chance, though, I'm sure we could come up with something.

"6. How did the intermediate forms live?"
You are assuming there was a magical jump from a Carp to a Frog. Well, there wasn't.

Where did I say this? I'm wondering what allowed intermediate forms to live with partially developed 1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems, etc. For that matter, if the "super-carp" is better, why do we have carp today? If each step up is better by definition, we should have run out of lower forms quite some time ago. The answer, of course, is random chance.

"3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?"
What perfect mixture of gases? The air we breathe is in constant flux. At no time do we breathe the exact same composition of air as we did before.

First, you missed the point of the question. The entire system needs to be present to function. How did species with one or two parts survive before the rest of the system developed? Random chance saw to it that it all worked out.

"4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?"
From that primordial goo. The simplest lifeforms have much less complex DNA than we do.

How did it happen that DNA and RNA both happened in the same cell (all surviving cells, actually), with DNA in an incredible double-helix, and DNA unwound itself and unzipped, and an RNA molecule snuggled up to it and made a copy, and the DNA then zipped back up and rewound. Random chance?

"8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?"
What?

Typo. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen becoming human? In other words, life from unlife. What about the experiments of Redi and Pasteur? Are they bogus? Or didn't they have enough time (or just bad chance)?

"2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?"
They show no faith. They show scientific understanding and learning.

Your verifiable, testable, provable scientific explanations included "random" or "chance" at least ten times. In fact, we're to believe that everything in biological evolution (not to mention planetary, stellar, and elemental evolution) is the amazing result of random chances. I believe in a supernatural (i.e., non-verifiable, non-scientific) miraculous creation of the universe and everything in it. You believe in a materialistic, statistical miracle of such proportions based on so many unverifiable, unsubstantiated assumptions that I'd be ashamed to admit it.
[edit for clarity]

[ December 12, 2002, 03:51: Message edited by: Krsqk ]