- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,219
- 3,837
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Sorry but no cigar for you!
Yes experiments have doen some amaxzing things and produced amazing results!
But those experiments speak more to ID than naturalistic evolution! Also creating amino acids in and of itself is remarkable, but that is still a long way from producing life from non- life!
How?
What has ID got to do with demonstrating that amino acids don't require ID?
Cause and effect is a rule of nature that has not been disproved! Even if you add other variables to a thing- the effect or result cannot be greater than the various things that caused it.
I don't know the formulas for how to make an atomic bomb for how much of U235 or plutonium to add. But lets say 1 pound of plutonium makes a bomb of 100 kilotons. YOu will not get a greater release of energy unless you add other factors (like tritium) and even then the blast will not be greater than the total energy avsailable!
I think you need to define what you mean by "greater"... because I don't see what point you are trying to make.
If it's that energy transformations and releases aren't perfect, then I agree, but that doesn't cause a problem for evolution or abiogenesis.
Chemistry doesn't have to be perfect... and there needing to be other factors present doesn't mean that ID is required.
And there might have been an ominpotent God who merely spoke everything into existence
It can't ever be ruled out... but it does require the addition of more elements that are not in evidence.
The geologic column and most ancient fossils show a world populated by very simple life forms with an extremely different atmosphere... the evidence is not for the special creation of a world more or less like our modern one.
So yo believe in a modified form of punctuated equilibrium then? They call it teh Cambrian Explosion for a reason- all this complex life just appears in th efosil record. Without all teh transitions to support any kind of hypotheses.
You need to define what you mean by those terms, because I don't think you are using the normal definitions.
There are fossils of more complicated life forms from the Precambrian, but they did not have shells or bones so we have very limited evidence for the rest of their biosphere.
The point is that the Cambrian demonstrates the development of bones and shells... which allowed the for the diversification we call the Cambrian Explosion.
There is a question I have never got a reasonable answer from Creationists... why do you attack the Cambrian explosion anyway? Surly you don't actually believe it happened?
Upvote
0