This is a discussion on the theory of intelligent design NOT religion, that is a separate matter altogether. I believe there is strong evidence for the existance of a "God" that created this reality with an intelligence that we can't comprehend with our small brains and narrow points of view. The theory of ID was a major factor that brought me to this beliefe so let me share with you some of the information on the subject that I found compelling. I repeat this is not about any specific religion. Take your time and look at some of this info with an open mind.




The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.



The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity
Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
By Michael J. Behe

Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.


Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.

Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.

I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe


Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry
From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference

<HR>Michael J. Behe
Discovery Institute
August 10, 1996
A Series of Eyes

How do we see? In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail, and its sophisticated features astounded everyone who was familiar with them. Scientists of the time correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye's many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. So it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact.
Charles Darwin knew about the eye too. In the Origin of Species, Darwin dealt with many objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection. He discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled "Organs of extreme perfection and complication." Somehow, for evolution to be believable, Darwin had to convince the public that complex organs could be formed gradually, in a step-by-step process.
He succeeded brilliantly. Cleverly, Darwin didn't try to discover a real pathway that evolution might have used to make the eye. Instead, he pointed to modern animals with different kinds of eyes, ranging from the simple to the complex, and suggested that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.
Here is a paraphrase of Darwin's argument. Although humans have complex camera-type eyes, many animals get by with less. Some tiny creatures have just a simple group of pigmented cells, or not much more than a light sensitive spot. That simple arrangement can hardly be said to confer vision, but it can sense light and dark, and so it meets the creature's needs. The light-sensing organ of some starfishes is somewhat more sophisticated. Their eye is located in a depressed region. This allows the animal to sense which direction the light is coming from, since the curvature of the depression blocks off light from some directions. If the curvature becomes more pronounced, the directional sense of the eye improves. But more curvature lessens the amount of light that enters the eye, decreasing its sensitivity. The sensitivity can be increased by placement of gelatinous material in the cavity to act as a lens. Some modern animals have eyes with such crude lenses. Gradual improvements in the lens could then provide an image of increasing sharpness, as the requirements of the animal's environment dictated.
Using reasoning like this, Darwin convinced many of his readers that an evolutionary pathway leads from the simplest light sensitive spot to the sophisticated camera-eye of man. But the question remains, how did vision begin? Darwin persuaded much of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simpler structure, but he did not even try to explain where his starting point for the simple light sensitive spot came from. On the contrary, Darwin dismissed the question of the eye's ultimate origin:
How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated. He had an excellent reason for declining the question: it was completely beyond nineteenth century science. How the eye works; that is, what happens when a photon of light first hits the retina simply could not be answered at that time. As a matter of fact, no question about the underlying mechanisms of life could be answered. How did animal muscles cause movement? How did photosynthesis work? How was energy extracted from food? How did the body fight infection? No one knew.
To Darwin vision was a black box, but today, after the hard, cumulative work of many biochemists, we are approaching answers to the question of sight. Here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision. When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)
GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
My explanation is just a sketchy overview of the biochemistry of vision. Ultimately, though, this is what it means to "explain" vision. This is the level of explanation for which biological science must aim. In order to truly understand a function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as vision, or digestion, or immunity must include its molecular explanation.
Now that the black box of vision has been opened it is no longer enough for an "evolutionary explanation" of that power to consider only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century, and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Darwin's simple steps are now revealed to be huge leaps between carefully tailored machines. Thus biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin. Now the black box of the cell has been opened and a Lilliputian world of staggering complexity stands revealed. It must be explained.
Irreducible Complexity

How can we decide if Darwin's theory can account for the complexity of molecular life? It turns out that Darwin himself set the standard. He acknowledged that:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But what type of biological system could not be formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications"?
Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.
Let's consider an everyday example of irreducible complexity: the humble mousetrap. The mousetraps that my family uses consist of a number of parts. There are: 1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; 2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; 3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; 4) a sensitive catch which releases when slight pressure is applied, and 5) a metal bar which connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged. Now you can't catch a few mice with just a platform, add a spring and catch a few more mice, add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces of the mousetrap have to be in place before you catch any mice. Therefore the mousetrap is irreducibly complex.
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.
Demonstration that a system is irreducibly complex is not a proof that there is absolutely no gradual route to its production. Although an irreducibly complex system can't be produced directly, one can't definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. However, as the complexity of an interacting system increases, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.
The Cilium

Now, are any biochemical systems irreducibly complex? Yes, it turns out that many are. A good example is the cilium. Cilia are hairlike structures on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that can move fluid over the cell's surface or "row" single cells through a fluid. Inhumans, for example, cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. What is the structure of a cilium? A cilium consists of bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double "microtubules" surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composedof two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing a protein called dynein.
But how does a cilium work? Experiments have shown that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered "walking" of the dynein arms on one microtubule up a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other. The protein cross-links between microtubules in a cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links, therefore, convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.
Now, let us consider what this implies. What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly requires microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally we require a motor, or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, we require linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these parts are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore, we can conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex; an enormous monkey wrench thrown into its presumed gradual, Darwinian evolution.
Blood Clotting

Now let's talk about a different biochemical system of blood clotting. Amusingly, the way in which the blood clotting system works is reminiscent of a Rube Goldberg machine.
The name of Rube Goldberg; the great cartoonist who entertained America with his silly machines, lives on in our culture, but the man himself has pretty much faded from view. Here's a typical example of his humor. In this cartoon Goldberg imagined a system where water from a drain-pipe fills a flask, causing a cork with attached needle to rise and puncture a paper cup containing beer, which sprinkles on a bird. The intoxicated bird falls onto a spring, bounces up to a platform, and pulls a string thinking it's a worm. The string triggers a cannon which frightens a dog. The dog flips over, and his rapid breathing raises and lowers a scratcher over a mosquito bite, causing no embarrassment while talking to a lady.
When you think about it for a moment you realize that the Rube Goldberg machine is irreducibly complex. It is a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to break down. If the dog is missing the machine doesn't work; if the needle hasn't been put on the cork, the whole system is useless.
It turns out that we all have Rube Goldberg in our blood. Here's a picture of a cell trapped in a clot. The meshwork is formed from a protein called fibrin. But what controls blood clotting? Why does blood clot when you cut yourself, but not at other times when a clot would cause a stroke or heart attack? Here's a diagram of what's called the blood clotting cascade. Let's go through just some of the reactions of clotting.
When an animal is cut a protein called Hageman factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hageman factor. Immediately the activated Hageman factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein. Kallikrein helps HMK speed up the conversion of more Hageman factor to its active form. Activated Hageman factor and HMK then together transform another protein, called PTA, to its active form. Activated PTA in turn, together with the activated form of another protein (discussed below) called convertin, switch a protein called Christmas factor to its active form. Activated Christmas factor, together with antihemophilic factor (which is itself activated by thrombin in a manner similar to that of proaccelerin) changes Stuart factor to its active form. Stuart factor,working with accelerin, converts prothrombin to thrombin. Finally thrombin cuts fibrinogen to give fibrin, which aggregates with other fibrin molecules to form the meshwork clot you saw in the last picture.
Blood clotting requires extreme precision. When a pressurized blood circulation system is punctured, a clot must form quickly or the animal will bleed to death. On the other hand, if blood congeals at the wrong time or place, then the clot may block circulation as it does in heart attacks and strokes. Furthermore, a clot has to stop bleeding all along the length of the cut, sealing it completely. Yet blood clotting must be confined to the cut or the entire blood system of the animal might solidify, killing it. Consequently, clotting requires this enormously complex system so that the clot forms only when and only where it is required. Blood clotting is the ultimate Rube Goldberg machine.
The Professional Literature

Other examples of irreducible complexity abound in the cell, including aspects of protein transport, the bacterial flagellum, electron transport, telomeres, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and much more. Examples of irreducible complexity can be found on virtually every page of a biochemistry textbook. But if these things cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution, how has the scientific community regarded these phenomena of the past forty years? A good place to look for an answer to that question is in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field. In a recent issue of JME there were published eleven articles; of these, all eleven were concerned simply with the comparison of protein or DNA sequences. A sequence comparison is an amino acid-by-amino acid comparison of two different proteins, or a nucleotide-by-nucleotide comparison of two different pieces of DNA, noting the positions at which they are identical or similar, and the places where they are not. Although useful for determining possible lines of descent, which is an interesting question in its own right, comparing sequences cannot show how a complex biochemical system achieved its function; the question that most concerns us here. By way of analogy, the instruction manuals for two different models of computer putout by the same company might have many identical words, sentences, and even paragraphs, suggesting a common ancestry (perhaps the same author wrote both manuals), but comparing the sequences of letters in the instruction manuals will never tell us if a computer can be produced step by step starting from a typewriter.
None of the papers discussed detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. In the past ten years JME has published over a thousand papers. Of these, about one hundred discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, about 50 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, and about 800 were analyses of sequences. There were ZERO papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any science journal whatsoever.
"Publish or perish" is a proverb that academicians take seriously. If you do not publish your work for the rest of the community to evaluate, then you have no business in academia and, if you don't already have tenure, you will be banished. But the saying can be applied to theories as well. If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished. Despite comparing sequences, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be. In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish.
Detection of Design

What's going on? Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the middle of the room next to the body stands a large, gray elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderm's legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on, looking even more closely at the floor. You see, textbooks say detectives must "get their man," so they never consider elephants.
There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled "intelligent design." To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity. Rather, they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed; the designer took steps to bring the systems about. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.
The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself, not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.
What is "design"? Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts. The scientific question is how we detect design. This can be done in various ways, but design can most easily be inferred for mechanical objects. While walking through a junkyard you might observe separated bolts and screws and bits of plastic and glass, most scattered, some piled on top of each other, some wedged together. Suppose you saw a pile that seemed particularly compact, and when you picked up a bar sticking out of the pile, the whole pile came along with it. When you pushed on the bar it slid smoothly to one side of the pile and pulled an attached chain along with it. The chain in turn yanked a gear which turned three other gears which turned a red-and-white striped rod, spinning it like a barber pole. You quickly conclude that the pile was not a chance accumulation of junk, but was designed, was put together in that order by an intelligent agent, because you see that the components of the system interact with great specificity to do something.
It is not only artificial mechanical systems for which design can easily be concluded. Systems made entirely from natural components can also evince design. For example, suppose you are walking with a friend in the woods. All of a sudden your friend is pulled high in the air and left dangling by his foot from a vine attached to a tree branch. After cutting him down you reconstruct the trap. You see that the vine was wrapped around the tree branch, and the end pulled tightly down to the ground. It was securely anchored to the ground by a forked branch. The branch was attached to another vine, hidden by leaves so that, when the trigger-vine was disturbed, it would pull down the forked stick, releasing the spring-vine. The end of the vine formed a loop with a slipknot to grab an appendage and snap it up into the air. Even though the trap was made completely of natural materials you would quickly conclude that it was the product of intelligent design.
A Complicated World

A word of caution; intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism. The possibility of a meteor's impact does not mean that volcanos can be ignored; the existence of sculptors does not mean that many rocks are not shaped by weather. Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of neutral, nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), meiotic drive (the preferential selection during sex cell production of one of the two copies of a gene inherited from an organism's parents), transposition (the transfer of a gene between widely separated species by non-sexual means), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.
Curiouser and Curiouser

So as this talk concludes we are left with what many people feel to be a strange conclusion: that life was designed by an intelligent agent. In a way, though, all of the progress of science over the last several hundred years has been a steady march toward the strange. People up until the middle ages lived in a natural world. The stable earth was at the center of things; the sun, moon, and stars circled endlessly to give light by day and night; the same plants and animals had been known since antiquity. Surprises were few.
Then it was proposed, absurdly, that the earth itself moved, spinning while it circled the sun. No one could feel the earth spinning; no one could see it. But spin it did. From our modern vantage it's hard to realize what an assault on the senses was perpetrated by Copernicus and Galileo; they said in effect that people could no longer rely on even the evidence of their eyes.
Things got steadily worse over the years. With the discovery of fossils it became apparent that the familiar animals of field and forest had not always been on earth; the world had once been inhabited by huge, alien creatures who were now gone. Sometime later Darwin shook the world by arguing that the familiar biota was derived from the bizarre, vanished life over lengths of time incomprehensible to human minds. Einstein told us that space is curved and time is relative. Modern physics says that solid objects are mostly space, that sub atomic particles have no definite position, that the universe had a beginning.
Now it's the turn of the fundamental science of life, modern biochemistry, to disturb. The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom. Instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long-dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin's black box.

i refuse to read all this... im sorry


call me ignorant if you must.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

what's even more confusing is the leap from abioltically synthesized compounds to living organisms. but still, i think that we have to keep in mind that this occurred in the billions of years, and there were probably trillions of different cellular aggregates due solely by chance.

i will read this one day when im not so fuked up ansd tired

what's even more confusing is the leap from abioltically synthesized compounds to living organisms. but still, i think that we have to keep in mind that this occurred in the billions of years, and there were probably trillions of different cellular aggregates due solely by chance.

+1



(psss, I hope that was a good point)

i agree with you evil, i didnt read that post cuz its 2 friggin long, but its cool someone shares the same belief on here. rare to find these days.

I know its long, I'm just hoping there is someone out there that isn't sure and maby this will help them.

Michael Behe's irreducible complexity was debunked some time ago. Intellegent design is a metaphysical/religious position and not science. It creates a God of Gaps entity to solve all the issues that science is unable to answer immediately. ID makes no real scientific predictions, and when approached for peer review it has failed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?ex=1291352400&en=feb5138e425b9001&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If youy had all this on video I would watch it, too much reading tho man sorry.

It's very interesting tho I watched some very interesting Islamic science documentrys available on google, suggesting that science had "found god" and it seemed very beleivable, very interesting. It made me realised this universe must have been created..

People say it was'nt created it was the big bang. Well, who initiated that 'big bang'? Or rather, what created it.

It's very interesting tho I watched some very interesting Islamic science documentrys available on google, suggesting that science had "found god" and it seemed very beleivable, very interesting. It made me realised this universe must have been created..

So it must have been created just because the documentary on google was believable and interesting? So do you believe every conspiracy theory you hear?

Why don't you state the things you found convincing.

People say it was'nt created it was the big bang. Well, who initiated that 'big bang'? Or rather, what created it.

Who created God? If God doesn't need a creator, why does the universe?

The Ultimate question is what was the universe before big bang?

i have been thinking alot about this things, ex. why do we exist?...why do we act like we do?...i have been reading some Buddhism and it fucked up my mind.. like we are the sum of our actions, you die and resurect everyday, you can never be the same person you where yesterday, everyday you learn something new and you change as a human being.
Whats the point of learning if you are going to die anyways?, do we become something more after death? i think so.

The design of life is to good to just end like that....
'



(I did not read the post so maybe im out of topic)

i have been thinking alot about this things, ex. why do we exist?...why do we act like we do?...i have been reading some Buddhism and it fucked up my mind.. like we are the sum of our actions, you die and resurect everyday, you can never be the same person you where yesterday, everyday you learn something new and you change as a human being.
Whats the point of learning if you are going to die anyways?, do we become something more after death? i think so.

The design of life is to good to just end like that....
'



(I did not read the post so maybe im out of topic)

If you want some good reading material, read "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Camus.

i agree with you evil, i didnt read that post cuz its 2 friggin long, but its cool someone shares the same belief on here. rare to find these days.

Stupidity isn't rare. Ba dum tss!

Seriously, there's no way I'm about to read that dissertation, but having read Behe's previous work, I'm sure the poster who made the thread will be able to answer from very simple questions:

If ID is truly scientific, then what mechanisms are we looking at that are at work? With evolution, you have natural selection, which is an observable phenomenon that is documented on a daily basis, but what does ID have as its mechanism which we can observe that is responsible for perpetuating this so called design?

What makes this design intelligent? I'm sure he mentioned the eye in that article, but it's not out of line to point to the fact that few people have what is considered perfect vision. Most of us need glasses, or contacts, and a number of people suffer from far worse conditions. So what constitutes an intelligently designed structure?

What designer are we talking about? If it's scientific, then we can surely identify what's at work. The Mayans would read this and think of the deity at work within the Spoken Edict stories. A number of Asians might automatically think of a sentient cosmic egg (not a joke). The Sumerians would read this as a tract on what validates the idea of slain monster which gave birth to the world. For Muslims, Mohammed. So how do we differentiate between not just two, but many possible designers?

"inteligent" design is religion

intelligent design = religion

a very sneaky technique to pass religion off as science to get religion reintroduced into the classrooms of america..
the only problem is these people offer no scientific proof to their outlandish claims.
try to tell a nobel prize winning scientist the "science" of the world being created in 7 days..

Yeah, well there is no proof for evolution either...

Yeah, well there is no proof for evolution either...

Thank you for answering my objections.

Although if you want proof for evolution, I'll be happy to provide it as soon as we get you to admit ID is bullshit. However, I won't rely on generalizations. Just address my post and let's see whether they pass or fail as valid criticisms of ID on their own merit. Deal?

does anyone take it seriously?

No one knows for sure, there is no consensus in science.

not true evil, science has tons of data the proves evolution including the so called "missing link"
i suggest you watch penn & tellers bullshit, the intelligent design episode.. i couldnt find it here, but i found this one.. watch it, its similar but not as good..



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8152208608191358213&q=penn+and+teller&hl=en

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

Lets cut to the BS and stop calling it a "theory", and just call it what it is...Creationism. ID shares nothing in common with an actual scientific theory.

rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

A common misconception amongst the ignorant is that natural selection is an "undirected" or "random" process. In reality, natural selection is a *selective* process! Hence, the name natural *selection*. Sure, the odds of complex life arising "by mere chance" are astronomical, but evolution doesn't work by chance...it's deterministic.


ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

I wouldn't be so quick to throw around that word "scientific"...it loses meaning and value if anything that uses big fancy words and can be called "scientific". ID is, in reality, the polar opposite of real science. ID starts with a pre-formed conclusion and works backwards, trying to bend the facts to fit into it's pre-conceived world view, which is exactly backwards compared to the real scientific method.


ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.


No, ID is *not* controversial, at least not amongst people who matter, i.e. scientists and scholars in related fields. Telling a biologist that evolution is just a theory is like telling a physicist that Relativity is "just a theory"...the phenomenon of evolution is accepted as a fact, even if our understanding of the mechanisms at work is still incomplete. Essentially, ID and creationism is a non-issue to real scientists...it's not even on the radar. The only people amongst whom exists such a controversy are religious fundamentalists, young-earth creationists and other biblical apologists, and some people on a school board in Kansas, apparently.



If ID was scientific, it would be falsifiable. It is not.
If ID was scientific, it would make testable predictions. It does not.
The entire "science" of ID is based around supposed "flaws" in evolution...as if poking holes in one theory automatically proves another, infinitely more hole-riddled theory.

What would be taught in an ID class?
Day 1--Goddidit.
Day 2--umm...God still did it.
The rest of the year--evolution is wrong! (therefore, goddidit.)
Finals-- question 1) True or false, is evolution wrong, and therefore, did God do it?

No one knows for sure, there is no consensus in science.

I don't know where you heard that, but you obviously didn't hear it from a biologist, or anyone in a relevant field of science. There most certainly is an OVERWHELMING consensus in the scientific community.

You must have never heard of Project Steve, have you?

Creationists, ID theorists, and biblical apologists in general love to put out lists of "scientists" who doubt evolution, in order to make it appear that there is controversy raging in the scientific community about evolution's veracity. Upon closer examination of these lists, however, it is often found that the vast majority of the people listed are not practicing biologists, did not achieve their PhD in a relevant field of science, or even worse, simply made up their credentials. Some even list dead scientists who are claimed to have been creationists, even though they lived at a time when the theory of evolution was either in it's infancy, or in some cases not even proposed yet.

To counter these lists, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) created it's own list...the prestigious "List of Steves". It is a list of scientists who support evolution...but the catch is that the NCSE tied an arm and two legs behind its back by making an arbitrary requirement that the scientists be named some variation of "Steve". The NCSE "List of Steves" already contains several times more signatures than any single list that ID proponents have been able to come up with, even though it has been estimated that less than 1% of the population is named "Steve".

So, the next time you claim that there's no consensus, ask yourself, "out of all the scientists who doubt evolution...how many of them are named Steve?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

Oh, and in case you're wondering...THIS (http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php) list, published by the Discovery Institute (the organization figureheaded by Behe, whom you quoted extensively in your first post) contains exactly ZERO Steves!

:p

Intelligent design `the science of design detection`? What now? Since when was unsubstansitated guesswork science? Where are the objective tests for a the presence of design? The empirical evidence of a designer?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8655881191636417153&q=What+The+Bleep+Do+we+Know



I believe in Intelligent Design.....because Quantum Mechaincs supports it....IT may not be a persona, place or thing but the fact that Sub Atomic Particles act one way when your not observing them and act one way when you are obseriving them. To me that shows intelligence and a level of conciousness.

If you read long enough you find that are physics in this Universe don't govern the realities of other universes. Take time for example....Time is a strictly Earthly Phenomenon. We try to gage the Birth/Expanse of the Universe based on OUR perception of time, when in fact we can't because we are looking though our own pre concieved concept of how the universe works. When in Thoery, it's all just a thoery.

Through human history we have pigeon holed ourselves into absolutes. The Earth was Flat, The sun and planets revovled around the Earth....Each time we draw a line in the sand that deals with the creation or state of the Universe 10 to 20 years later it is found to be incorrect.

They are right now in the process of debunking Hubble's dating of our known Universe. That is the Universe's age is based upon how fast it is expanding and if your trace that back you find a "Begining" or "Birth" point of the Universe.


The law of Quantum Mechanics enables you to create your own universe, your own set of thoery's that can constantly be subject to change because you the observer are constantly changing and evolving as well, along with the Universe around you. Everything is based on Probabilities and Possibilities in the Universe.

So if you believe in it it can be a possibility because your perspective and piece of mind is what directly influences what can and can not be possible in your own world.

everyone go watch "the young age of the earth" sure they are faith based scientists but they make damn good arguments with alot of evidence.

then come back and say you're sorry and then go kill yourself please. thanks.

Huh? How does the varying behaviour of particles neccesarily imply intelligence and consciousness? It sounds like that's an assuming too much from the properties of small objects from where I am standing.

By the by, what have the merits or demerits of other theories have to do with intelligent design? All of our scientific theories concerning the emergence of our universe could be entirely wrong...but that wouldn't prove that the universe was intelligently designed.

Could you explain what our inability to perceive thru anything but our sense of our time has to do with the non-existence or existence of a designer? I'm not sure how human frailities come into the debate......unless on some subconscious level a party arguing either way is intensely concerned with, or perhaps even insecure about, their own.

everyone go watch "the young age of the earth" sure they are faith based scientists but they make damn good arguments with alot of evidence.

then come back and say you're sorry and then go kill yourself please. thanks.

Instead, I think I'll stick to peer-reviewed journals and not apologise or kill myself.

But thanks for the advice.

Instead, I think I'll stick to peer-reviewed journals and not apologise or kill myself.

But thanks for the advice.

well it is a peer reviewed movie, but you're welcome and maybe next time.

well it is a peer reviewed movie, but you're welcome and maybe next time.

Really? A movie that's been subjected to peer review? I had no idea that happened...can't a find a source to say that it was tho. I'm sure you could provide one.

A movie subjected to academic peer review. Never realised that happened....any other examples?

Really? A movie that's been subjected to peer review? I had no idea that happened...can't a find a source to say that it was tho. I'm sure you could provide one.

A movie subjected to academic peer review. Never realised that happened....any other examples?

take it for what you will and want, thats open to the opinion of the individual, as this is all.

i meant the book the movie was based on was peer reviewed.

take it for what you will and want, thats open to the opinion of the individual, as this is all.

i meant the book the movie was based on was peer reviewed.

I take it the title of the book is the same as the film title? I'll check it out.

everyone go watch "the young age of the earth" sure they are faith based scientists but they make damn good arguments with alot of evidence.

then come back and say you're sorry and then go kill yourself please. thanks.

So you're saying a peer-reviewed MOVIE which contradicts the facts assembled for decades by people without bias, filtering information through a process that ensures what is or is not supported by evidence, is the bell end all of a topic according to "faith-based" scientists. Gee, I wonder why someone would call themselves a faith based scientist as opposed to simply a scientist if they weren't halfwits trying to explain to dumber halfwits why their bullshit theories should taken seriously. Perhaps because only the clinically retarded won't question such bullshit.

That could be it. Give us a name and I assure you we'll tear it to shreds.

I believe in Intelligent Design.....because Quantum Mechaincs supports it....IT may not be a persona, place or thing but the fact that Sub Atomic Particles act one way when your not observing them and act one way when you are obseriving them. To me that shows intelligence and a level of conciousness.

If you read long enough you find that are physics in this Universe don't govern the realities of other universes. Take time for example....Time is a strictly Earthly Phenomenon. We try to gage the Birth/Expanse of the Universe based on OUR perception of time, when in fact we can't because we are looking though our own pre concieved concept of how the universe works. When in Thoery, it's all just a thoery.

Through human history we have pigeon holed ourselves into absolutes. The Earth was Flat, The sun and planets revovled around the Earth....Each time we draw a line in the sand that deals with the creation or state of the Universe 10 to 20 years later it is found to be incorrect.

They are right now in the process of debunking Hubble's dating of our known Universe. That is the Universe's age is based upon how fast it is expanding and if your trace that back you find a "Begining" or "Birth" point of the Universe.


The law of Quantum Mechanics enables you to create your own universe, your own set of thoery's that can constantly be subject to change because you the observer are constantly changing and evolving as well, along with the Universe around you. Everything is based on Probabilities and Possibilities in the Universe.

So if you believe in it it can be a possibility because your perspective and piece of mind is what directly influences what can and can not be possible in your own world.

I can't believe no one recognizes the logical fallacies of such bullshit whenever they hear themselves say this crap. You're telling me Quantam Mechanics supports an intelligent designer? On what grounds OTHER than mere assertion?

I can't believe no one recognizes the logical fallacies of such bullshit whenever they hear themselves say this crap. You're telling me Quantam Mechanics supports an intelligent designer? On what grounds OTHER than mere assertion?

Duh...because the act of observing a particle necessarily has an effect on the particle you're observing, therefore changing it's behavior compared to if you hadn't observed it, means...

GODDIDIT!!!

(it has nothing to do with the fact that on quantum scales, "observing" involves colliding another particle with the one you're trying to observe, which affects said particles motion)

everyone go watch "the young age of the earth" sure they are faith based scientists but they make damn good arguments with alot of evidence.

then come back and say you're sorry and then go kill yourself please. thanks.


I swear, I must have heard every single "young earth" argument that the creationist think-tanks could spew out, using your tithes and donations as funding. Not a single one, not ONE, withstands even cursory scientific scrutiny. Post any one argument from the movie here and I'll prove it to you.

For a young earth viewpoint to be substantiated, you'd have to overturn the most fundamental principals of modern Biology, Geology, Archeology, Paleontology, Astronomy, and Physics. That's a tall order, even with millions of sheep throwing their dollars at it every sunday.

Dammit, I'd almost given them enough rope.

Come on guys, shouting at them just gets their righteous indignation of the persecuted on. You have to trick them into doing the thing they are most averse to- y'know, thinking critically.

Dammit, I'd almost given them enough rope.

Come on guys, shouting at them just gets their righteous indignation of the persecuted on. You have to trick them into doing the thing they are most averse to- y'know, thinking critically.

Fair enough. But someone acting smug in their interpretation of a 6,000 year old Earth, and actually taking it seriously should be laughed at. Mocking is a good tool in and of itself when you're someone who isn't sure which side to take and consider with reason that when EVERYONE with solid credentials working within a profession in the best position to evaluate pseudo-scientific claims laughs at you...it's probably for a better reason than "hmm, that eye sure is complimacated...well gosh darn i'll be damned ef' wusn't God huz responsamable!?"

I like this thread... noticed its the non believers that act harsh and are so ready to call names.

I like this thread... noticed its the non believers that act harsh and are so ready to call names.

no suprise its always been like this thru time. i hold no grudge, ppl have their beliefs and nuthin is gonna change them. i wish them happiness but when things like this come along it just reall exposes their deep anger at anything foreign.

Dammit, I'd almost given them enough rope.

Come on guys, shouting at them just gets their righteous indignation of the persecuted on. You have to trick them into doing the thing they are most averse to- y'know, thinking critically.

you're right yelling is not the way to go, since you guys are the ones yelling and causing an uproar,that isnt right huh? however, self-righteous insults are much better huh?

this is pointless.

I like this thread... noticed its the non believers that act harsh and are so ready to call names.



My cranks almost really started turning....but then I realized that I could sit here and write a dissertation on why Particles acting two distinct ways under two distinct expierments, one observed, one not shows a clear basis for awarness of surroundings and the elements in which the particles are being observed in....but then again they probably don't even understand Quantum Theory.


And yes....Quantum Theory is just theory but so is E=MC2.....so is about a billion other "Laws" that we think exisit....yet really have no discernable proof to base them on. The "laws" of our universe, of our awareness are based on the probabilities that have the least amount of restistance to them.

You didn't say shit about "Hubbles Thoery" being sacked.....

My cranks almost really started turning....but then I realized that I could sit here and write a dissertation on why Particles acting two distinct ways under two distinct expierments, one observed, one not shows a clear basis for awarness of surroundings and the elements in which the particles are being observed in....but then again they probably don't even understand Quantum Theory.


And yes....Quantum Theory is just theory but so is E=MC2.....so is about a billion other "Laws" that we think exisit....yet really have no discernable proof to base them on. The "laws" of our universe, of our awareness are based on the probabilities that have the least amount of restistance to them.

You didn't say shit about "Hubbles Thoery" being sacked.....

its not gonna matter. they could post their opinions and we can do the same, its always gonna end up the same, where none of us are gonna change our beliefs. its fine, this has happened for many years and will never end.

Anything foreign?

If he we act "harsh" it's because none of you (assorted Id'ers, et cetera) EVER start out a discussion by posting evidence of your claims. It's always "well, watch so and so and you really begin to understand/evolutionists are just afraid of new ideas". And it demonstrates and seriously lack of ability to engage us with well-executed arguments, and evidence so that we can weigh the claims against logic. Course, none of you do because if you were to debate, you'd be exposed so it always boils down to the "see how mad they get? OMG!" *there's* our evidence right there". It's a tactic I fall prey to, but I'm past the point of caring since you're all the same.

Seriously, is there a reason why the NONE of you addressed any of the points that *argued* against your claims? Is there a reason why none of you went in depth regarding the evidence you said supported these silly ideas?

This has nothing to do with foreign ideas. If intelligent design was initially a theory espoused by flying spaghetti monster believers, and pagan worshipers nobody would say shit, but because superstitions that happen to have a socially acceptable amount of support, the claims are taken seriously. It's because no one addresses the counterarguments, and instead resort to your stupid persecution complexes where you hope the pity ignorant people impose on you will make it look like your ideas are threatening as opposed to being stupid.

Could you explain what our inability to perceive thru anything but our sense of our time has to do with the non-existence or existence of a designer? I'm not sure how human frailities come into the debate......unless on some subconscious level a party arguing either way is intensely concerned with, or perhaps even insecure about, their own.


Dude....that's a long post

Anything foreign?

If he we act "harsh" it's because none of you (assorted Id'ers, et cetera) EVER start out a discussion by posting evidence of your claims. It's always "well, watch so and so and you really begin to understand/evolutionists are just afraid of new ideas". And it demonstrates and seriously lack of ability to engage us with well-executed arguments, and evidence so that we can weigh the claims against logic. Course, none of you do because if you were to debate, you'd be exposed so it always boils down to the "see how mad they get? OMG!" *there's* our evidence right there". It's a tactic I fall prey to, but I'm past the point of caring since you're all the same.

Seriously, is there a reason why the NONE of you addressed any of the points that *argued* against your claims? Is there a reason why none of you went in depth regarding the evidence you said supported these silly ideas?

This has nothing to do with foreign ideas. If intelligent design was initially a theory espoused by flying spaghetti monster believers, and pagan worshipers nobody would say shit, but because superstitions that happen to have a socially acceptable amount of support, the claims are taken seriously. It's because no one addresses the counterarguments, and instead resort to your stupid persecution complexes where you hope the pity ignorant people impose on you will make it look like your ideas are threatening as opposed to being stupid.


TL/FWI

anyways dont get so hurt, just live your life with your beliefs and we will do ours, no need to get so riled up. you present your facts and we do ours and let it be.

Anything foreign?

If he we act "harsh" it's because none of you (assorted Id'ers, et cetera) EVER start out a discussion by posting evidence of your claims. It's always "well, watch so and so and you really begin to understand/evolutionists are just afraid of new ideas". And it demonstrates and seriously lack of ability to engage us with well-executed arguments, and evidence so that we can weigh the claims against logic. Course, none of you do because if you were to debate, you'd be exposed so it always boils down to the "see how mad they get? OMG!" *there's* our evidence right there". It's a tactic I fall prey to, but I'm past the point of caring since you're all the same.

Seriously, is there a reason why the NONE of you addressed any of the points that *argued* against your claims? Is there a reason why none of you went in depth regarding the evidence you said supported these silly ideas?

This has nothing to do with foreign ideas. If intelligent design was initially a theory espoused by flying spaghetti monster believers, and pagan worshipers nobody would say shit, but because superstitions that happen to have a socially acceptable amount of support, the claims are taken seriously. It's because no one addresses the counterarguments, and instead resort to your stupid persecution complexes where you hope the pity ignorant people impose on you will make it look like your ideas are threatening as opposed to being stupid.



Dude....calm down. Sometimes you have to do the work for yourself. Try watching "what the bleep do we know" and then come back and we can talk about Quantum Theory.

Alright. Since I'm relatively calm, let's try this out in a civilized manner. Here are the points that have been raised so far in this thread against ID:

If ID is truly scientific, then what mechanisms are we looking at that are at work? With evolution, you have natural selection, which is an observable phenomenon that is documented on a daily basis, but what does ID have as its mechanism which we can observe that is responsible for perpetuating this so called design?

What makes this design intelligent? I'm sure he mentioned the eye in that article, but it's not out of line to point to the fact that few people have what is considered perfect vision. Most of us need glasses, or contacts, and a number of people suffer from far worse conditions. So what constitutes an intelligently designed structure?

What designer are we talking about? If it's scientific, then we can surely identify what's at work. The Mayans would read this and think of the deity at work within the Spoken Edict stories. A number of Asians might automatically think of a sentient cosmic egg (not a joke). The Sumerians would read this as a tract on what validates the idea of slain monster which gave birth to the world. For Muslims, Mohammed. So how do we differentiate between not just two, but many possible designers?

All questions that went ignored by the people still posting in this thread..
Those were my objections...now let's look at cooncat's...

A common misconception amongst the ignorant is that natural selection is an "undirected" or "random" process. In reality, natural selection is a *selective* process! Hence, the name natural *selection*. Sure, the odds of complex life arising "by mere chance" are astronomical, but evolution doesn't work by chance...it's deterministic.

This point went ignored of course...

I wouldn't be so quick to throw around that word "scientific"...it loses meaning and value if anything that uses big fancy words and can be called "scientific". ID is, in reality, the polar opposite of real science. ID starts with a pre-formed conclusion and works backwards, trying to bend the facts to fit into it's pre-conceived world view

What say you (to the ID'ers)?

If any of these points at least get addressed, perhaps we can have something close to a civilized discussion. If you guys continue to ignore well-argued counterpoints, and general information contradicting things you've said while claiming how much you guys should be taken seriously despite continuing to make unsupported claims...well then...

you're right yelling is not the way to go, since you guys are the ones yelling and causing an uproar,that isnt right huh? however, self-righteous insults are much better huh?

this is pointless.

right....i'm pretty sure you were telling people that didn't accept ID to go kill themselves.

which some posters seemed to have missed. i think they were too busy generalising.

mostly, i've just asked for people to clarify what they are saying. they were not hard questions, so i'm wondering why no-one has answered.

TL/FWI

anyways dont get so hurt, just live your life with your beliefs and we will do ours, no need to get so riled up. you present your facts and we do ours and let it be.

You've just made statements contradicting ours, and have presented ZERO facts. Would you like to have a discussion or are you backpedaling?

You've just made statements contradicting ours, and have presented ZERO facts. Would you like to have a discussion or are you backpedaling?

neither, because its obvouly pointless to discuss this with you when you are your high horses and seemingly so touchy with anything that disagrees with what you have been taught.

Dude....that's a long post

I'm happy to read it if you are happy to write. i like to be shown i'm wrong, it means i've learnt something

neither, because its obvouly pointless to discuss this with you when you are your high horses and seemingly so touchy with anything that disagrees with what you have been taught.

Wrong. If you've got any faith in what you believe in, then supporting your claims should be no problem regardless of what some anonymous internet stranger has to say. I'll get off my high horse as soon as you get off your bicycle. Fair enough?

Honestly....where are you even coming from....are you coming from the stand point of you believe God Almighty created the earth in seven days yadda, yadda, yadda.....

OR are you coming from the stand point of the Big-Bang/Evolving Universe end.......


Personally.....I don't think some al knowing God created this universe. There are too many complex levels to how things work. Conciousness, the Soul, Death, Birth, Reincarnation. The only "real" tangible thing in my life is my conciousness. It is and what gives birth to all perception in life.

everyone go watch "the young age of the earth" sure they are faith based scientists but they make damn good arguments with alot of evidence.

then come back and say you're sorry and then go kill yourself please. thanks.

Who's touchy?

Hypocrisy is a bad colour for you.

Dude....calm down. Sometimes you have to do the work for yourself. Try watching "what the bleep do we know" and then come back and we can talk about Quantum Theory.

You have a thread devoted to it. While I have no doubt a B-Budget movie will hold all the answers about Quantam Theory and how it validates the existence of God, I'd like to hear your arguments and interpretation instead of spending 2 hours watching a movie that will only reinforce what I think of it.

right....i'm pretty sure you were telling people that didn't accept ID to go kill themselves.

which some posters seemed to have missed. i think they were too busy generalising.

mostly, i've just asked for people to clarify what they are saying. they were not hard questions, so i'm wondering why no-one has answered.

first off i was joking about the killing part(if you venture into other parts of this website you will see the culture and personality of most posters here) and secondly actually read my other posts saying this is pointless i dont want to keep posting links back and forth and spending valuable time(i assume u feel the same) arguing over something that we as humans do now know 100% about contrary to anyone's opinions. if this makes u feel so agitate then im sorry i never mean to make anyone mad with my beliefs. they are mine however, and u are also entitled to yours.

Like I have said all this will be a back and forth exchange that will get us nowhere, feel free to continue if you like. I am certainly not getting anything out of this, is be suprised if you are yourselves.

Who's touchy?

Hypocrisy is a bad colour for you.

lmao sure keep thinkin that. since this is all you've been doing. like i said again, its a joke and if u know about this site u would see why, but obviously u dont.

what should i expect next from you, since u are obviously infuriated with ppl who *gasp* share a different view than you, name calling maybe? please dont, im sensitive to that :sifone:

Wrong. If you've got any faith in what you believe in, then supporting your claims should be no problem regardless of what some anonymous internet stranger has to say. I'll get off my high horse as soon as you get off your bicycle. Fair enough?

so you are on a high horse then? thats for proving my point. i have complete faith in what i beleive in, and i dont see the need to try to prove it to others who will only laugh at it and thrash not only it but the individual who believes in it. thank you have a nice day.

so you are on a high horse then? thats for proving my point. i have complete faith in what i beleive in, and i dont see the need to try to prove it to others who will only laugh at it and thrash not only it but the individual who believes in it. thank you have a nice day.

That's obviously a no then. I'm glad you were able to address the points I made, and showed courage under "fire"- under the banner of an anonymous internet stranger laughing at you in other words. A true man of faith you are to come here, stake your claim in your beliefs, and address those that challenge it. It's been fun. Please try again when you're ready to take the training wheels off.

This is a discussion on the theory of intelligent design NOT religion, that is a separate matter altogether. I believe there is strong evidence for the existance of a "God" that created this reality with an intelligence that we can't comprehend with our small brains and narrow points of view. The theory of ID was a major factor that brought me to this beliefe so let me share with you some of the information on the subject that I found compelling. I repeat this is not about any specific religion. Take your time and look at some of this info with an open mind.


I do not believe that blackthorne or the basis of that dissertation. For me the sub atomic world and what we have viewed of it so far in are realtiy, for me, speaks to the fact that the world around us, and all the things in it are a product of ALL are conciousness. We have created the reality we live in this world.

Case in point.....are "perception" of time is a stricly earth bound principle.

That's obviously a no then. I'm glad you were able to address the points I made, and showed courage under "fire"- under the banner of an anonymous internet stranger laughing at you in other words. A true man of faith you are to come here, stake your claim in your beliefs, and address those that challenge it. It's been fun. Please try again when you're ready to take the training wheels off.

*yawns* and u are who again? :sleep:

i give u credit tho, u did waste my time, it was my fault but because of you. so i sincerely give credit where credit is derserved. have a nice life, come into the asylum if you want. its fun. you can unwind.

lmao sure keep thinkin that. since this is all you've been doing. like i said again, its a joke and if u know about this site u would see why, but obviously u dont.

what should i expect next from you, since u are obviously infuriated with ppl who *gasp* share a different view than you, name calling maybe? please dont, im sensitive to that :sifone:

uh-huh, asking polite questions and calling bs are the acts of an angry man.



so what was the name of that book? couldn't find it anywhere...author's name could help maybe ISBN number.

Heres an interesting article on Biblical Design.

Creation Model Passes Big Test

by Fazale Rana, Ph.D.
This past fall I took part in a pro football "pick'em" contest. For readers unfamiliar with this game, let me explain that the contestants demonstrate their football "smarts" by predicting the outcome of NFL games played each week. Even though I consider myself to be quite knowledgeable about football, I finished dead last. No matter what, I just couldn't predict the winners. (I guess there's always next year.)
In some ways, science operates like a football pick'em contest. Scientists develop hypotheses, theories, and models to explain some aspect of nature's workings. These ideas have logical consequences that lead to predictions about what scientists should have already discovered and what they will uncover in the future.
Scientists consider a theory to be valid only if it harmonizes with current scientific data and successfully predicts future scientific advances. Those theories that repeatedly fail to make successful prognostications must be reconsidered. They are not merely relegated to "last place," as I was; they are rejected.
As an example of how this process works, a new fossil discovery from an ancient rock formation in South Africa weighs in on the predictions game. In our book, Origins of Life, Hugh Ross and I developed a scientific model for life's origin based on Genesis 1:2 and Deuteronomy 32:9-12.1 Reasons To Believe's creation model makes several predictions that can be used to evaluate its validity. For example, the model predicts that life should appear early in Earth's history and that the first life forms should be inherently complex.
Evolutionary origin of life models, on the other hand, require a long "percolation" time, perhaps up to 1 billion years, before life can emerge from a primordial soup. These naturalistic scenarios also predict that the first life forms should be relatively simple.2
Numerous lines of fossil and geochemical evidence indicate that life was present remarkably early in Earth's history, possibly as far back as 3.8+ billion years ago.3 (Prior to about 3.8 billion years ago, life would have been impossible on Earth, because the planet's conditions were "hellishly" unsuitable for life.4) In spite of the weight of evidence in favor of early life on Earth, some origin-of-life researchers have questioned the authenticity of the most important and high-profile examples. These scientists maintain that the markers for early life are actually artifacts produced by inorganic processes.5
In the face of this challenge, RTB's model predicts that future discoveries will strengthen the evidence for early life on Earth. Such a discovery was made recently by two scientists from Stanford University.6 These investigators recovered new fossil and geochemical evidence for early life on Earth in a 3.416 billion-year-old rock formation from South Africa. Their data indicate that anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria produced the biological remains found in these ancient rocks. Even though such microbes are single-celled, their biochemical makeup is remarkably complex.
In support of RTB's model, this new discovery confirms the early appearance of complex metabolic life forms on Earth. These facts find ready explanation if a Creator intervened to make Earth's first life forms. At the same time, this discovery of early life runs counter to the predictions of evolutionary models. I guess there's always next year¾but origin-of-life research isn't football

and anouther supporting artical.

Early Life Remains Complex

By Fazale R. Rana
(First published in FACTS for FAITH Issue 7, 2001)
Recent discoveries continue to indicate that life appeared suddenly and early in Earth’s history. While substantiation for a rapid and early origin of life is fragmentary, the scientific community, by and large, views the evidence as convincing. Chemical residues of biological activity dated at greater than 3.8 billion years and fossilized bacteria recovered from rocks dated at around 3.5 billion years present primary indicators for early life.1 The incomplete nature of the evidence, the great antiquity of the rocks, and the geological processes operating on life’s remains obscure understanding of the first life on Earth, leaving many questions unanswered.
However, recent discoveries begin to address some of these questions. These new discoveries not only provide important additional support for an early origin of life, but also yield insight into the type of bacterial communities and metabolic processes at work.
The first of these new discoveries, made by an international team of scientists, uncovered fossilized bacterial remains in rocks from South Africa dated between 3.3 and 3.5 billion years in age.2 Spherical, “sausage-shaped,” and filamentous bacterial fossils in thin sections of the rock samples indicate the presence of a complex microbial ecology made up of different types of microorganisms. Additionally, the chemical make up of the bulk carbon isolated from the rock indicates that it resulted from biological processes-quite likely photosynthesis.
Researchers from Indiana University and Kanagawa University (Japan) sought to gain an understanding of early photosynthesis by employing a different approach from that of the scientists studying ancient rocks from South Africa. Working from an evolutionary perspective, these investigators compared genes from the various groups of photosynthetic bacteria that play a role in making a key molecule needed for photosynthesis.3 These scientists hoped to uncover the evolutionary origin and development of photosynthesis. Due to similarities and differences among the genes, they concluded that if evolution brought about photosynthesis, anoxygenic photosynthesis (that which occurs in the absence of oxygen) must have emerged before oxygenic (that which occurs in the presence of oxygen).
Researchers from Princeton University and the Russian Academy of Sciences, employing a chemical approach, reached a similar conclusion.4 Namely, to fit an evolutionary model, anoxygenic photosynthesis must have emerged prior to oxygenic. Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form.
These findings create problems for the evolutionary paradigm when examined in the context of the geological record. Fossil deposits clearly indicate the presence of a diverse collection of microbes capable of oxygenic photosynthesis on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.5 This means, from an evolutionary perspective, more complex anoxygenic photosynthesis must have been in operation well before 3.5 billion years ago. According to these results, evolutionary models for the origin of life must now account for the rapid and early appearance of photosynthesis.
The rapid and early appearance of life on Earth represents, perhaps, the most remarkable discovery in origin-of-life research. Yet this scenario does not fit within the various evolutionary portrayals of life’s origin. By emerging strictly through natural processes, life’s appearance on Earth should have taken place over a relatively long period. In contrast, the rapid and early beginning of life on Earth signifies the hallmark characteristics expected of life with a supernatural origin.
References:

and another

New Discovery Confirms Life’s Early Appearance on Earth

Fazale (Fuz) Rana, Ph.D.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge refers to it as “the most arresting fact that [he has] ever learned.”1 Many others in the scientific community share Eldredge’s astonishment. What causes their amazement?
Over the last decade or so, paleontologists have assembled a body of evidence indicating that life existed on Earth as far back as 3.8+ billion years ago.2 These life forms were morphologically simple, but biochemically and metabolically complex, single-celled microbes.3
Prior to 3.8+ billion years ago, life could not originate and find permanence on Earth because of hostile conditions caused primarily by frequent asteroid and cometary impacts. Around 3.9 billion years ago, the size and frequency of these impact events diminished. For the first time, oceans and a solid crust became permanent features on Earth.4 Immediately afterward, life appeared on Earth. As Eldredge puts it, “In the very oldest rocks that stand a chance of showing signs of life, we find those signs—those vestiges—of life. Life is intrinsic to the Earth!”5
This sudden appearance of metabolically sophisticated life forms poses problems for naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios. Evolutionary models stemming from naturalism predict that life should appear gradually on Earth, after a substantial percolation period. In contrast, the RTB model for life’s origin sees the sudden appearance of biochemically complex organisms as the fingerprint for God’s creative work.6
The chief evidence for early life on Earth comes from graphite deposits in the 3.8+ billion-year-old rocks found in western Greenland. The graphite’s carbon (measured in the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13) indicates that photosynthetic microbes produced it. Recently, however, paleontologists searching for ways to avoid obvious problems in evolutionary models have challenged the evidence for early life on Earth.7
Recent work by Danish geochemists takes much of the sting out of these challenges. These researchers found independent confirmation for life’s residue in the 3.8+ billion-year-old rocks of western Greenland. The uranium/thorium fractionation in these rocks compels the Danish scientists to conclude that photosynthetic microbes must have been present on early Earth.8
As investigators continue to probe Earth’s oldest rocks, the evidence for early life becomes more extensive and diverse. In 1997, paleontologist J. William Schopf marveled that “no one had foreseen that the beginning of life occurred so astonishingly early.”9 No one, that is, from a naturalistic perspective.

Evil do you believe that evloution could be a product of Our "Unique" species and it's generic DNA deciphering itself.

Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs. Biblical Creation

By Dr. Fazale Rana
(Spanish Version (http://www.reasons.org/chapters/argentina/articles_spanish_1.shtml#origin_of_life_prediction s_face_off_spanish))
When addressing the challenges that naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios present to their faith, Christians often point to the many problems facing origin-of-life researchers. But just pointing out the problems with the evolutionary origin-of-life models has alienated secular scientists, and has, in fact, driven many scientists away from Christ. A new approach is necessary, one that takes into account the legitimate concerns raised by secular scientists. Christians must not only present a positive case for the supernatural origin of life but also offer their case in a scientifically testable form if their ideas are to be taken seriously by the scientific community.
A biblically based, scientifically testable origin-of-life scenario can be developed and used to make a uniquely Christian contribution to the origin-of-life question. Creation can be put to the test; creation can be science. Remarkable harmony exists between the biblical origin-of-life model and the most recent results from the origin-of-life research community. Little if any agreement can be found between the naturalistic origin-of-life scenario and the scientific data.
Importance of the Question

Abiogenesis—the emergence of life from nonliving physicochemical systems—forms the core of the evolutionary paradigm. Life must have its beginning in exclusively physical and chemical processes for evolutionists to legitimately explain life’s diversity throughout Earth’s history from a strictly materialistic standpoint. If abiogenesis lacks scientific credibility, the foundation of evolutionary theory crumbles. Moreover, if life can be shown to have a supernatural origin, then the door opens for viewing all phenomena in biology from an intelligent design perspective.
Despite the importance of abiogenesis to the evolutionary paradigm, origin-of-life researchers have failed to generate any tangible progress towards a strictly materialistic explanation for life’s inception. The origin-of-life research program first began as a scientific endeavor in the early 1950s, when Stanley Miller produced amino acids in his now legendary spark-discharge experiments.1, 2 Giddy with Miller’s accomplishment, many scientists predicted answers to the origin-of-life question within the decades to come.3 However, origin-of-life researchers are no closer to understanding the origin of life today than they were 40 years ago when Stanley Miller did his first experiments. Best-selling author Paul Davies (an agnostic) makes this point in his book, The Fifth Miracle:
When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origins . . . Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding . . . This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.4
Davies goes on to explain why such a mismatch persists between public perception and reality on the origin-of-life question:
Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There seems to be two reasons for their unease. First, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations. Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding. . .5
The “behind-the-scenes” frustration of the origin-of-life research community was clearly evident at ISSOL ’99.6 The 9th meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life combined with the 12th International Conference of the Origin of Life at the University of California in San Diego in July 1999. This joint scientific meeting, held every three years, attracts the most prominent origin-of-life investigators from around the world and serves as a platform for sharing their latest findings. The mood there was grim.
The Case for a Supernatural Origin

When defending the Christian faith from the hard line of naturalism, pointing out the acknowledged problems with naturalistic origin-of-life scenarios may be important—but it is not enough. Christians must first make a positive case for the supernatural origin of life. Secondly, the case for life’s supernatural beginnings must comport with all of Scripture, not just one or two passages. And finally, for scientists to take seriously the case for a supernatural origin of life, that case must be testable. Paleontologist Niles Eldredge makes these points forcefully in his book The Triumph of Evolution and The Failure of Creationism. (In this work, Eldredge fails to demonstrate the triumph of evolution and only demonstrates the failure of young-earth creationism.7)Referring to young-earth creationists, Eldredge states,
Creation scientists have not managed to come up with even a single intellectually compelling, scientifically testable statement about the natural world. . . Creation science has precious few ideas of its own—positive ideas that stand on their own, independent of, and opposed to, counter opinions of normal science.8
So, in the end, there is as little substance in the scientific creationists’ treatment of the origin and diversification of life as there is in their treatment of cosmological time. They pose no novel testable hypotheses and make no predictions or observations worthy of the name. They devote the vast bulk of their ponderous efforts to attacking orthodox science in the mistaken and utterly fallacious belief that in discrediting science . . . they have thereby established the truth of their own position.9
Reasons To Believe scholars seek to address the important and valid points made by Niles Eldredge and other critics of creationism head-on by developing a biblically based, scientifically testable creation model—one that makes testable predictions. Creation can be tested. Creation can be science. An overview of the Reasons To Believe Creation model appeared in a previous issue of FACTS for FAITH (Q2 2000) and will be the topic of a conference on June 28-30, 2001. Numerous scientific and theological tests support that model.10
Presenting the biblical account of origins in the form of a testable creation model provides a powerful and exciting new approach to evangelism and apologetics. Offering up a testable creation model not only demonstrates the truthfulness of the Bible but also can lead to scientific advance. The standard naturalistic model and the biblical creation model for the origin of life both make predictions; thus, these predictions can be compared with some of the new major discoveries. Not surprisingly, the biblical description of the origin of life agrees with recent scientific discoveries. In sharp contrast, the most recent scientific data contradicts the predictions made by the naturalistic origin-of-life model.
Evolutionary Scenario for the Origin of Life

The textbook11, 12 or standard materialistic scenario for the origin of life begins shortly after Earth’s formation. The earth in its primordial state was markedly different than today. Evolutionary researchers take advantage of the lack of certainty about Earth’s early conditions by postulating that reducing gases—hydrogen-rich gases such as ammonia, methane, and water vapor—made up the early earth’s atmosphere. They speculate that no oxygen was present. Under these conditions energy discharges, such as lightning, propagating through the early earth’s atmosphere would lead to the production of small organic molecules, such as formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
According to this scenario, these prebiotic molecules would then accumulate in the earth’s oceans over vast periods of time to form the legendary primordial or prebiotic soup. Within the prebiotic soup, again over long periods of time, the small prebiotic molecules would react to form more complex molecules, such as amino acids, sugars, fatty acids, purines, and pyrimidines. These molecules would in turn function as building blocks for the complex molecules that eventually would lead to the biomolecules found in living systems today.
This explanation for the origin of life requires that the chemical reactions taking place in the prebiotic soup eventually produce molecules with the ability to self-replicate. As their concentration increased in the prebiotic soup, the large, complex molecules would be expected to aggregate to form protocells or prebionts. Over time, through random chemical and physical events, the self-replicating molecules found in the chemical aggregates would transfer this capability to the prebionts. Evolutionary processes (e.g. natural selection) would eventually lead the prebionts to become increasingly efficient self-replicators and increasingly more complex.
Finally these prebionts would yield an organism referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). LUCA presumably resembled a modern bacterium. LUCA, then, would have given rise to the major domains of life.
Table I lists some of the most important predictions that reasonably follow from the textbook origin-of-life scenario.
Table I

Some Predictions Made by the Naturalistic (Evolutionary) Origin-of-life Scenario


Chemical evidence for the prebiotic soup will be found in the geological record.
Placid chemical and physical conditions existed on the early earth for long periods of time.
Chemical pathways leading to the formation of biomolecules will be found.
Chemical pathways that produce biomolecules would have been capable of operating under the conditions of the early earth.
Life emerged gradually over a long period of time.
Life originated only once.
Life in its minimal form is simple.Biblical Model for the Origin of Life

Genesis 1:2 provides the starting point for the biblical description of life’s beginnings:
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
This passage describes the earth in its primordial state.13 According to the text, the Spirit of God was moving above the surface of the waters, so the context of this passage is the earth’s surface. Positioned on the earth’s surface, a hypothetical observer would experience only darkness. He would also note that Earth’s surface was covered entirely with water. An observer would also see Earth as unsuitable for life. The Hebrew word translated as formless, tohu, connotes a desolate wasteland.14
The Genesis 1:2 description of the earth’s primordial conditions finds remarkable agreement with the scientific description of the earth’s initial conditions. The interplanetary debris of the early solar system and thick primordial atmosphere of early Earth would keep sunlight from reaching its surface.15 Darkness would, indeed, be pervasive on the planet. While scientists debate the mechanism and timing for the formation of the earth’s oceans, consensus holds that continents did not exist when the earth formed. Early in its history Earth was, indeed, a water world.16 From the time of its formation (approximately 4.55 billion years ago) until 3.5 billion years ago, the earth experienced numerous collisions that would have rendered the earth a desolate planet largely unsuitable for life.17
Genesis 1:2 also describes the supernatural creation of the first life on Earth.18 The original language makes even more apparent than the English that the Spirit of God is doing more than simply hovering over the surface of the waters. The Hebrew word translated as “hovering,” rahap, may also be translated as “brooding.” In its only other biblical use, rahap describes the Spirit of God “protecting” the wandering nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 32:10-11):
In a desert land he found him, in a barren and howling waste. He shielded him and cared for him; he guarded him as the apple of his eye, like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers (rahap) over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them and carries them on its pinions.
Transposing this imagery onto Genesis 1:2, we see the Spirit of God “brooding” over the surface of Earth as a mother eagle, hatching and jealously protecting her young.19 As an added note, the nation of Israel is seen wandering in a land of desolation. Here, tohu is translated as howling waste, further linking Deuteronomy 32:10-11 and Genesis 1:2.
Table II lists some of the most important scientific predictions that arise from the biblical description of life’s origin.
Table II

Some Predictions Made by the Biblical Origin-of-life Scenario


Life appeared early in Earth’s history.
Life appeared under harsh conditions.
Life miraculously persisted under harsh conditions.
Life arose quickly.
Life in its minimal form is complex.Recent Scientific Discoveries in Origin-of-life Research

Comparing the predictions made by the two origin-of-life scenarios with the record of nature provides the best means of assessing the validity of the two competing models. Some of the most recent breakthrough discoveries in origin-of-life research specifically address predictions made by the two models.
Timing of Life’s Appearance

Origin-of-life researchers have recently uncovered unequivocal evidence that life first appeared early in Earth history, shortly after the formation of the first rocks.20-23 The oldest rocks yet discovered on Earth date at around 3.9 billion years old. Prior to this time, the earth existed largely in a molten state unsuitable for life. Researchers have identified carbonaceous deposits—deposits made up of carbon compounds such as kerogen tars, graphite and apatite—from the earth’s oldest rocks, dated at 3.86 billion years old. The chemical signature of these carbonaceous deposits indicates that they were produced as the by-product of biological activity. Fully consistent with the discovery of life’s by-products from 3.86 billion years ago is the discovery of fossilized bacteria in rocks about 3.5 billion years old.24, 25
Conditions at the Time of Life’s Appearance

Life first appeared and spent its early existence under unimaginably harsh conditions. In scientific terms, it should not have originated, let alone persisted. From the time of Earth’s formation (at 4.55 billion years ago) until around 3.9 billion years ago, the planet experienced frequent impacts.26, 27 Some of the objects (asteroids, comets, and planetesimals) striking the earth were approximately 100 km in diameter. Upon impact, these colliders liberated so much energy that, not only did water on the earth’s surface become volatilized, but rocks on the surface and subsurface melted. The giant impactor phase of Earth’s history ended around 3.9 billion years ago. However, at this time, gravitational perturbation in the solar system caused objects in the Kuiper-Edgeworth belt to rush toward the inner solar system.28 This event, termed the late heavy bombardment, led to over 17,000 collisions with the earth, destroying any life that would have been present. Finally, between 3.9 billion years ago and 3.5 billion years ago impactors still collided with the earth, though the size and frequency of impact diminished with time.29 Many of these events still would have vaporized the earth’s oceans, leading to a wholesale destruction of life. Between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, multiple origin-of-life events must have taken place with the maximum time window between impact events, and hence for the origin of life, being 10 million years.30
Soup or No Soup?

To date, origin-of-life researchers have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules produced by nonbiological processes. 31 All the carbonaceous deposits recovered from the oldest rocks are, without exception, the by-product of biological activity. The “absence of evidence” for a prebiotic soup must be taken as “evidence of absence.”32
If a prebiotic soup was not present on the early earth, the existing conditions would not support the formation of prebiotic molecules. Conversely, if it is discovered that the conditions of early Earth were not conducive to the formation of prebiotic molecules, a prebiotic soup would not be found within the geological record.
Fitting with the lack of evidence for a prebiotic soup is the growing recognition that the early earth’s conditions would not have supported the synthesis of prebiotic molecules. For example, mounting evidence indicates that the early earth’s atmosphere was neutral, not reducing, composed of N2, CO2, and H2O.33, 34 Even with the absence of O2 (an inhibitor to the process of forming life molecules), prebiotic molecules cannot be produced in this type of atmosphere.35, 36 Strong evidence also has emerged that there were low, but significant levels of O2 not only in the early earth’s atmosphere, but also in the early earth’s hydrosphere.37-39 The presence of O2 would serve to inhibit the formation of prebiotic molecules.
Viability of Chemical Pathways to Life

The prebiotic soup predicted by the textbook evolutionary model did not exist on early Earth. However, even if it had existed, it could not have led to life’s beginning. Origin-of-life researchers have discovered a number of chemical routes capable of yielding many of the molecules needed to build life,40 but abiotic pathways to many other crucially important classes of biochemical compounds have yet to be discovered and may not even exist.41
Even more problematic for the naturalistic origin-of-life scenario is the recognition that the conditions of the hypothetical primordial soup and of the early earth would have inhibited most, if not all, potential prebiotic chemical routes. Many of the potential prebiotic reactions can only succeed under restrictive conditions. In most cases, it is unlikely that these conditions existed on the early earth. In some instances, the same conditions needed to drive the formation of biochemical compounds would have led to their subsequent destruction.42, 43
New evidence indicates that the transition metals and rare earth elements in the early earth’s oceans would have promoted the decomposition of what many scientists believe were key intermediate chemical compounds taking part in the most widely accepted evolutionary origin-of-life scenarios.44 The hypothetical primordial soup would have undoubtedly been a complex chemical mixture comprised of a large number of chemical species. The same chemical routes that would have led to the production of biochemical compounds under laboratory conditions would have been inhibited by other components in the primordial soup. These interfering compounds would have either terminated or redirected key steps in the prebiotic pathways.45, 46 Given the likelihood of widespread chemical interference in the hypothetical primordial soup, the success of origin-of-life researchers in preparing biochemical compounds is a false success. Origin-of-life investigators typically study potential prebiotic pathways under unrealistic, controlled, chemically pristine conditions.
Simplicity or Complexity of First Life?

New evidence indicates that life in its minimal form is chemically complex even if morphologically simple. The smallest bacterial genomes capable of independent survival include between 1500-1900 gene products.47-50 These bacteria are believed to be the oldest organisms on Earth and quite likely reflect the complexity of first life on Earth and the minimum complexity of independent life.51 The smallest known genome, that of Mycoplasma genitalium, is comprised of 470 gene products.52 However, M. genitalium is not an appropriate model for the origin of life, for it depends on host biochemistry to survive and, therefore, cannot exist independently. Nonetheless, M. genitalium is a good model for determining the bare minimum requirements for life. Theoretical and experimental work using M. genitalium indicate that life requires at least 250-350 gene products (having eliminated, in theory, genes used for parasitic interactions).53-55
Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has calculated the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 1075. 56 Given this probability, Yockey calculated that if the hypothetical primordial soup contained about 1044 amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product).57 The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life.
Further complicating the supra-astronomical probabilities that must be overcome for even the simplest life to arise by natural processes is the changing view of bacteria. No longer regarded as cells with a random, nondescript internal structure, bacteria are now recognized as having remarkable internal organization, both spatially and temporally, at the protein level.58, 59 This internal organization of bacterial cells is universal and is needed for their survival. This means that origin-of-life researchers must account for not only the simultaneous appearance of 250-350 gene products but also their organization inside the cell.
Biblical Description Agrees with Scientific Discoveries

Comparing the predictions of the biblical origin-of-life model with the most recent discoveries coming from origin-of-life research reveals remarkable agreement. Life originated early and quickly in Earth’s history under hostile conditions. Moreover, life as it first appeared, in its minimal form, possesses enormous complexity.
None of the predictions that come from the naturalistic model are satisfied by the most recent scientific results. From a naturalistic perspective, supra-astronomical probabilities argue against the required simultaneous assembly of the molecular components needed for life to function in its most minimal form. Perhaps most devastating of all is the absence of a primordial soup on early Earth. All origin-of-life models that appeal exclusively to natural processes have as their chief requirement a primordial soup. Even if a primordial soup existed, however, the chemical processes supposedly taking place in the soup seem incapable of producing life. In light of the most recent scientific discoveries, the comments of Paul Davies and the quiet frustration of origin-of-life researchers seem understandable.
The harmony between the Bible’s account of the origin of life and nature’s record provides powerful evidence for the validity of the Christian faith. The lack of concordance between the naturalistic model for life’s origin and the scientific data causes one of the key pillars of the theory of evolution to crumble. Once a reasonable, testable case has been made for the supernatural origin of life, the door is open to view other areas of the biological realm from a supernatural standpoint as well.
In addition to demonstrating the truthfulness of Scripture, recent discoveries show how the biblical account of origins can contribute to scientific research. By offering the biblical account of life’s origin in a form that invites scientific testing, Christians make clear that the study of creation is science. A testable creation model approach to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the major categories of life, and the origin and spread of humanity allows Christians to make a unique contribution to the question of origins—one that allows for supernatural explanations. By offering testable models capable of making predictions, Christians can positively influence the direction of scientific research in a way that reflects their worldview and in a way that can be respected and embraced by the scientific community. Creation is science.

and anouther supporting artical.

Early Life Remains Complex

...



Interesting.

Which scientific journal did this appear in? Even were this to discredit evolution, how would it support intelligent design? Why weren't any references posted? Can we all assume this was not peer-reviewed?

Evil do you believe that evloution could be a product of Our "Unique" species and it's generic deciphering itself.


I believe God set a "beginning" and an "end", everything inbetween fills in by itself using the laws God set up.

Sorry, I don't have an easier way to explain this.

Interesting.

Which scientific journal did this appear in? Even were this to discredit evolution, how would it support intelligent design? Why weren't any references posted? Can we all assume this was not peer-reviewed?

Sorry I didn't post refferences to save space.

References:

Manfred Schidlowski, “A 3,800-Million Year Isotopic Record of Life from Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks,” Nature 333 (1988), 313-18; Manfred Schidlowski, “Carbon Isotopes as Biogeochemical Recorders of Life Over 3.8 Ga of Earth History: Evolution of a Concept,” Precambri.an Research 106 (2001): 117-34; S. J. Mojzsis et al., “Evidence for Life on Earth before 3,800 Million Years Ago,” Nature 384 (1996), 55-59; J. William Schopf, “Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New Evidence of the Antiquity of Life,” Science 260 (1993), 640-46.
Frances Westall et al., “Early Archean Fossil Bacteria and Biofilms in Hydrothermally Influenced Sediments from the Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa,” Precambri.an Research 106 (2001): 93-116.
Jin Xiong et al., “Molecular Evidence for the Early Evolution of Photosynthesis,” Science 289 (2000), 1724-30.
G. C. Dismukes et al., “The Origin of Atmospheric Oxygen on Earth: The Innovation of Oxygenic Photosynthesis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 98 (2001): 2170-75.
Schopf, 640-46.

Even were this to discredit evolution, how would it support intelligent design?

The theory is complex life showed up suddenly in Earths very early history and would not have had the time needed to elovolve to such a complex state. It doesn't prove "God" put the life there but it does not disprove it either.

No offense, but "scholarly" articles should be accompanied by some sort of interpretation, or at least a few comments. Otherwise you're just spamming and adding no insight of your own. Not that I mind, but I'm more interested in the people's opinions (as long as they're not a trolling douchecopter) than in some article posted by an author we can't have a dialogue with.

In our book, Origins of Life, Hugh Ross and I developed a scientific model for life's origin based on Genesis 1:2 and Deuteronomy 32:9-12.1 Reasons To Believe's creation model makes several predictions that can be used to evaluate its validity. For example, the model predicts that life should appear early in Earth's history and that the first life forms should be inherently complex.
Evolutionary origin of life models, on the other hand, require a long "percolation" time, perhaps up to 1 billion years, before life can emerge from a primordial soup. These naturalistic scenarios also predict that the first life forms should be relatively simple.2

Don't you see how when someone says &quo