But that's not the important part. I read Richard Dawkins' description of his WEASEL and do you know what my reaction was? Disbelief! I had already been an atheist for 25 years. I had already started learning about evolution and been supportive thereof thoroughly convinced thereof for at least 20 years. But I could not believe what he had just told me. So what did I do? I put it to the test! I wrote my own WEASEL, albeit named MONKEY, and I tested it. And, not believing the results I saw, I analyzed it! And in the end I found that it was right and I knew why it was right!
-Argument from personal experience isn't very convincing.
Would you do the same? Would you take a creationist claim and test it? Would you ever even question any creationist claim?
Here's one, from Kent Hovind.
-Straw man. I don't listen to Kent Hovind. He seems to be a YEC, and as such does not represent the thinking of ID. Why not choose Stephen Meyer? I have analyzed much of his arguments.
This does not explain all the questions of how life developed on earth over 3.5 billion years ago, but it goes a long way in showing how possible it was for life to develop from existing chemicals in the conditions that existed in the pre-biotic earth.
quote:I realized that [the RNA world hypotheses] presupposed or ignored, rather than explained, the origin of SEQUENCE SPECIFICITY - INFORMATION - in various RNA molecules
"Signature in the Cell", by Stephen Meyer, p. 312
So you haven't explained how the complex, specified information could have been generated. Your sources simply state:
"Evolution did it - POOF". That's, again, a statement of faith, not supported by any of the facts you presented.