"Semper Libčr°" wrote:
> "Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:tKNpj.66207$Mu4.41907@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > God fanatics constantly make the claim the wonders and complexity of
the
> > world is proof of God.
>
> Complex AND purposefully organized.... That is observable evidence in
the
> same way that any fool can recognize a complex and organized computer
> program as having an intelligent and purposeful creator/programmer.
Adding
> to this example, of course, is the fact the creation of a universe and
> subsequent resultant consciousness and intelligence, balanced systems
for
> sustaining life, etc.. is many billions of times more complex than our
> computer program example. So can you understand logical reason?
>
> That is overwhelming evidence of an intelligent creator.
.......and this creator, is it human looking?
If you fail this one then your comment above is worthless
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> "The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically
> designed for us." - Stephen Hawking
>
> "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for
more
> than 40 years have completely failed." - N.H.Nilson, famous botanist and
> evolutionist
>
> "Under slightly reducing conditions, the Miller-Urey action does not
produce
> amino acids, nor does it produce the chemicals that may serve as the
> predecessors of other im****tant biopolymer building blocks. Thus, by
> challenging the assumption of a reducing atmosphere, we challenge the
very
> existence of the "prebiotic soup", with its richness of biologically
> im****tant organic compounds. Moreover, so far, no geochemical evidence
for
> the existence of a prebiotic soup has been published. Indeed, a number
of
> scientists have challenged the prebiotic soup concept, noting that even
if
> it existed, the concentration of organic building blocks in it would
have
> been too small to be meaningful for prebiotic evolution." Noam Lahav
(1999)
> Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins Oxford University Press, 1999,
> p138-139
>
> "There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop
> independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in
> known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can
organize
> spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The
problem
> of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on
the
> surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of
> reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is
> negligible." Orgel, Leslie (1998) "The origin of life -- a review of
facts
> and speculations," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (Dec 1998):
491-495.
> (pp. 494-495)
>
> "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting
> the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of
light
> and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have
> been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
> highest degree." - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter
"Difficulties"
>
> "I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the
only
> acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to
> physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that
we
> do not like if the experimental evidence sup****ts it." - H. Lipson, "A
> Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138
>
> "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove
> that a single species has been changed." - Charles Darwin, My Life &
Letters
|
