Juhrahnimo
There is just no way for enough left handed amino acids to come about by "chance" to make even ONE right handed protein
LOL. Can you locate a paper in a peer reviewed source where someone claims that chance is the way that amino acids come about?
And even if that DID happen, we would have only ONE protein that COULDN'T survive on it's own because it would have NO instructions, much less a mechanism, to replicate itself.
Have you heard of the work of Professor Donna Blackmond?This website
http://www.ic.ac.uk/P5343.htm has an article you might be interested in.
You want to see an evolutionist go beserk? Just mention the amino acid problem to them; but be sure to DUCK so you don't get hit by inadvertant sputum!
LOL!Sputum? Where do you get this stuff from? Watchtower comics?
First, there is NO mathematical model that shows ANY plausibility whatsoever for life coming from non-life (amino acid problem
Really? Do you think that a mathematical model is required to show such a thing?Perhaps you could also allow us in on what constitutes non-life as seperate from life?
Second, "some experiments" refer to the "Miller" experiment (and others) which insinuated that a bolt of lightning (and other stuff) made "the building blocks of life" somehow, which was a bogus experiment but I won't cover that here (evolutionists get VERY defensive when you take pokes at Miller), neglecting the fact that Miller's experiment produced nothing more than the same POISONOUS mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids that a dead body produces by itself (WITHOUT intelligence!).
Certainly the Miller experiments has fallen from favour over the years however research continues to gather evidence of the conditions necessary for understanding how the process of abiogenesis could have occured.The work is hard and the evidence difficult to pin down but given time there will no doubt be a coherent model that will stand scrutiny,
And third, they "lack any credible alternative theory" because they don't want to consider GOD as the owner of this chunk of real estate,
Science doesn't consider god because there is no evidence to show that such a entity is more than the fabrication of our minds. From the tone of your post it appears that you feel threatened by the possibility of a non divine means of beginning for life.
If they leave God out, they will NEVER have a credible alternative theory.
That is a bold statement coming from someone who has already made up their mind and closed it to any possibility of their being mistaken.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
™ Version 4.2