two important questions for Servant

A few amino acids are a long way from a living thing. You still never said why I could not by on the right track. I could also say you are not open minded because you will not accept what I am saying. This reasoning will get us no ware. Unless I am mistaken, this whole website is based on conflict.right?

Stanley miller was a misguided man, modern evolutionist no longer bye into his ideas. And one main reason is that he did not actually recreate the prebiotic soup. His experiment had way to much oxygen in the air. Also if you know about biology you would know that the latest idea based on the fact that RNA has catalytic properties. And you would also know that in reality RNA is very fragile and even a small electric charge would break it down. So how could this all happen from a lightning strike in some slim?

I've heard a lot of misstatements of the Miller/Urey experiment, but I think that's maybe the worst.There was oxygen in the simulated atmosphere, sure. but it was in the form of water vapor, not O2.Evolutionists have never considered the Miller/Urey experiment proof that life can arise undirected. It's simply proof that some organic compounds can be expected to arise from a prebiotically plausible atmosphere.Which is well more than Creationists have. I'd like to see an observation that proves that God has the ability to create life from lifelessness. What mechanism does he use to do so?

Have you heard of the anthropic-principle? It says that things happened in the universe the way they did or we would not be here to ask the question in the first place. I will be the first to say that most creationist are crazy and there ideas have little to do with science and some would say that modern creationist have done more harm that good. But the idea that someone or something made life and this whole universe is just as scientifically possible as if it came from nothing. But even if you are right and we did evolve we still don’t know were the universe came from. Maybe this whole universe and evolution as we know it was by deign before the universe was even here?

Could be, sure. If you think that the theory of evolution cares about the origin of the universe, you're quite mistaken.In other words, who cares why the universe is here? It's still true that natural processes account for the diversity of life on Earth.

For one thing, I wasn't using the Miller's experiment to prove that life could come from nothing, and nobody is saying that anyway. You were saying that it was impossible for order to come from chaos, and Miller simply showed that order CAN come from disorder.Again, let me remind you that your idea is that order can't come from disorder. We have shown you that water molecules can come into formation at certain temperature. You denied that using your crap explanation. Now, you try to change the subject after I've shown you an experiment in the past that showed organized molecules such as organic compounds can come into formation in relatively simple conditions.

---

The Laminator

​

This is a pathetic attempt to prove falsity by pointing out an area of science that is still being explored.Again, all the experiment did was showed that certain organic molecules can form without divine intervention. Order come from disorder all the time, and I don't know why you still want to hold your belief that it can't.

---

The Laminator

​

FOR REASON NUMBER ONE:Stu Kaufmann the guy who perhaps BEST promotes order for free was the only man (aside from Von Weisacker who was just plain curious) who actually ENCOURGED ME to continue to think about acutal infinity in terms of biological objectifications.

When I took creative writing, I had to hit my head with a hammer all year long to get an A in the class. I'm not good at deciphering messages such as this, especially one in a single sentence structure. Also, English ain't my first language.In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

---

The Laminator

​

Welcome to the McFall zone. For whatever reason the admins let Brad wander around the forum inserting random text messages, apparently.Then again I've seen him be more or less coherent. It's fairly rare, though.Mostly his point seems to be to try to relate high-falutin' math concepts with the biological sciences. This doesn't make much sense to most people but every now and then somebody has the background to get the hang of what he's talking about. This may not be the case for folks like us. Oh, sorry to hear you had such problems with creative writing. Since your writing is so clear, I'm surprised that's the case. Then again it wouldn't be the first time that I observed a science-minded person physically recoil from the lack of precision represented by most creative description techniques. (I once saw a friend of mine adamantly refuse to use something so literally wrong as a metaphor.)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-20-2004]

Years of beating my head with a hammer made me write clear like this. I can crank out papers fairly quickly. However, I am terrible at writing poetry or interpreting novels that were written in romantic (not sex romantic) format. If I ever get my hands on a time machine, I will go back in time and kick the crap out of Mary Shelly for writing Frankenstein. Then, I will go to Russia and beat the crap out of Dostoevsky for writing Demons. I absolutely hate those books with all my heart.

---

The Laminator

​

Call me when you're ready to go.

Bump - message 29: I'd like an answer, I guess. Any time you're ready.Or can we conclude that I was right and paleobotany falsifies the Noaic flood?

Hi Schrafinator,Having seen Crashfrog's latest post and not having seen one from you, I momentairly ass/u/me that you agree with that post which leads me to post the following question:You are asking a Creationist to provide a theory of Creation without God in it? If so then, quoting you, "...what's the point?" In case this is not true, I continue.I have povided a theory of end-to-end Creation (not theistic evolution) which explains as well as the theory of evolution the apparent relationship of the DNA of all living things.I look forward to your related post.Bob, Alice, and Eve

Your theory simply declares, without evidence, that God is the engine behind speciation. Schraf called this theistic evolution, and noted that it isn't science because your explanations are based upon faith rather than evidence. That doesn't make you wrong, but it does mean your views are not scientific.This is from your Message 47: I don't know about illogical, but certainly unnecessary. Why would you want to put God on a scientific footing? If there were scientific evidence for God then where would be the need for faith? If there were scientific evidence for God we would be all be believers, but out of scientific imperative, not out of faith. Is that what you want? Your theory reduces to, "Whatever we find, that's what God did."--Percy