tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8059056200273790370..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Protein Folding and EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35132590335991822412010-12-23T21:22:23.156-08:002010-12-23T21:22:23.156-08:00Eocene wrote:
Actually there's one problem h...Eocene wrote: <br /><br /><b>Actually there's one problem here. He never did that. Where did you hear or see him reference his god Jesus(or any other diety) ???</b><br /><br />The real problem is that you either bought into Cornelius misrepresentation of Louis' video or created one of your own, rather than make an effort to accurately portray Louis' position. <br /><br />Specifically, Louis was referring to the Irreducible Complexity argument (some things are too complex to have evolved incrementally), not his own views on Evolution and how God was involved. <br /><br />As such, the absence of his own position isn't a surprise, as you'd like to portray.<br /><br />However, should you really be interested in Louis' position, there are various videos and blog posts that do elaborate further. To summarize, God supposedly used his omnipotence and omniscience to create a natural process that would eventually result in the biological complexity we observe; just as God supposedly created other natural processes such as time and space out of nothing using his omnipotence and omniscience. <br /><br />As such, where you and Louis disagree isn't God's ability, but his goals, motives and method of achieving them. In other words, it's all a matter of theology. <br /><br />Of course, this doesn't bode well for your agenda here, so your best bet was to misrepresent Louis' video as if he had no explanation, despite the fact that his position is reasonably clear by his affliction with the Biologos foundation.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4547156677774783222010-12-23T00:40:33.476-08:002010-12-23T00:40:33.476-08:00Scott:
"
Hopefully, your line of logic will ...Scott:<br /><br />"<br />Hopefully, your line of logic will make at least some sort of sense."<br />=====<br /><br />Unfortunately for anyone trying to carry on an intelligent logical conversation with you, we don't have the uncanny ability of a Wiccan or fortune-teller to determine what alter ego multiple personality we are dealing with at any one time or what parallel universe that ego presently resides in at the time of discussion because we can never be certain of what definition shell game of word/terms exist in that said universe. See the dilema ???<br /><br />"What Is Truth ???"Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49150892555710070352010-12-23T00:34:12.227-08:002010-12-23T00:34:12.227-08:00Scott:
"Eocene thinks Louis shouldn't t...Scott:<br /><br /> "Eocene thinks Louis shouldn't think evolution is true because *other people* (atheists) are also think evolution is true and these *other people* supposedly cannot explain evolution without invoking a designer.<br />=====<br /><br />No he can believe as he wishes, but what I've said all along is that a theistic evolutionist should be detailed and honest in their assessment of the step by step processes that their god(whatever god) used to kick start the evolutionary ball rolling. Unfortunately these cowards(terrified of what atheists and the Secular world will say) never once explain this. <br /><br />When Cornelius lays out an amazing example of biological complexity in any of these blog subject titles, (admittedly diliberately so) he's illustrating the sophistication and purposed directedness with which these informationally driven nano-molecular machines operate and accomplish what they do in defiance of the undirectedness, unguidance and blind unintelligent chaotic forces which are insisted drive life in the first place. NO ONE has ever given a completely satisfactory answer to these questions of no intelligence allowed and you simply will never be allowed to get away with that.<br /><br />Unfortunately when we point this out, we get cry babying by self promoting intellectual anonymous Geeks who demonize us by saying we're misrepresenting their religious position. That's "Abiogenesis" they excuse. Evolution is guided and directed and has purpose(other than ideological indoctrination purposes). So sadly we never get a satisfying answer and get labled a heretic for wanting to know the truth without the blind faith requirements.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10033484344662127672010-12-23T00:26:14.918-08:002010-12-23T00:26:14.918-08:00Scott:
"So, despite the fact that Louis expl...Scott:<br /><br />"So, despite the fact that Louis explains evolution via his belief in a omnipotent and omniscient designer, which can supposedly do anything logically possible - like create the entirety of time and space from nothing "<br />=====<br /><br />Actually there's one problem here. He never did that. Where did you hear or see him reference his god Jesus(or any other diety) ??? The ONLY clue that he hails from the Theistic Evolutionist Kamp comes via the back drop of the Bio-Logos banner hanging in the background as he speaks. Never once did he explain how his god(whoever/whatever it is) used it's guiding intelligence to manipulate the material substrate(which assuming this god already invented) to assemble proteins in such an articulate perfectly sequenced manner for life. <br /><br />Instead we got the usual canned fable of the organized sequences self-assembling mythology where all the right elements come together into a soup by natural causes(without any interference from intelligence - just physics & chemicals) and defying Crick's & Watson's Central Dogma of the normal real world observed process being informationally driven. What did I miss here ???<br />-----Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24971832141837745572010-12-22T21:50:58.940-08:002010-12-22T21:50:58.940-08:00Negative Entropy:
"I keep being perplexed. T...Negative Entropy:<br /><br />"I keep being perplexed. Those who say climate change is false are mostly creationists."<br />=====<br /><br />Exactly, yet you are a "José come lately" to these boards and you may be unfamiliar with some of the stupidity that come from both sides on this. Maybe I'll explain over at your blog. <br /><br />BTW, I do believe things are environmentally being screwed up and it has a human cause, but then I have none of the Evo-Creo-IDeo lables freely being thrown around here.<br />-----<br /><br />Negative Entropy:<br /><br />"How come you think evolution is behind those denialisms?<br />=====<br /><br />Again you'll have to lok back on some of the posting history here of those who will spew out something stupid if only for the sake of being contrary. Admittedly it won't make sense, but oh well. *wink* <br />-----<br /><br />Negative Entropy:<br /><br />"Do you live in a parallel universe?"<br />=====<br /><br />No I actually live in the real world. But there are clearly people here that have "New Age" leanings and live for definition shell gaming on these boards. Seriously, read some of these kook blogs.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53562876734580920222010-12-22T17:31:18.110-08:002010-12-22T17:31:18.110-08:00Negative Entropy said... Eocene
I keep being perp...Negative Entropy said... Eocene<br /><br />I keep being perplexed. Those who say climate change is false are mostly creationists. How come you think evolution is behind those denialisms? Do you live in a parallel universe? <br /><br />Heaven forfend, that evolutionists should have to bear the cross for the discredited "science" of Manmade Global Warming. (Nice try, clever switch to "climate change".) If I were truly religious, I would believe that "3 unrelated women in 3 different parts of the country would have similar narratives of Albert Gore raping them", that those must purely be fabrication. And, of course, no charges files, no time in prison "for Nobel Laureates". The better part of valor to not join our multiple prize-winning genius Gore in huckstering Manmade Global Warming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91624017241320529962010-12-22T15:45:54.554-08:002010-12-22T15:45:54.554-08:00Negative Entropy said...
Thorton,
But DN...<i>Negative Entropy said...<br /><br /> Thorton,<br /><br /> But DNA --> protein formation isn't random like glass shards. It follows known laws of chemistry and physics. Why should the same chemical reaction occurring under the same conditions not produce similar results each time?<br /><br /> Because evolution is random chaotic undirected stochastic chance!!!!! We know that random chaotic undirected stochastic chance would never produce a viable protein out of a random chaotic undirected stochastic chance soup of amino acids!!!!!<br /><br /> (How well did I do the creationist? Do I get 10 points?)</i><br /><br />Pretty good, but too many sciency words and not enough flying spittle. I'll give it an 8.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12964374697491484142010-12-22T14:37:20.692-08:002010-12-22T14:37:20.692-08:00Thorton,
But DNA --> protein formation isn'...Thorton,<br /><br /><i>But DNA --> protein formation isn't random like glass shards. It follows know laws of chemistry and physics. Why should the same chemical reaction occurring under the same conditions not produce similar results each time?</i><br /><br />Because evolution is random chaotic undirected stochastic chance!!!!! We know that random chaotic undirected stochastic chance would never produce a viable protein out of a random chaotic undirected stochastic chance soup of amino acids!!!!!<br /><br />(How well did I do the creationist? Do I get 10 points?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90239777236346672392010-12-22T14:32:09.049-08:002010-12-22T14:32:09.049-08:00Eocene,
I keep being perplexed. Those who say cli...Eocene,<br /><br />I keep being perplexed. Those who say climate change is false are mostly creationists. How come you think evolution is behind those denialisms? Do you live in a parallel universe?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84535564863177966402010-12-22T09:34:57.268-08:002010-12-22T09:34:57.268-08:00Hawks:
"Yesterday, I witnessed a six-year-ol...Hawks:<br /><br />"Yesterday, I witnessed a six-year-old not giving birth to anything. Therefore, humans don't reproduce. Therefore, evolution is false."<br />======<br /><br />I believe you've got the arguement spin down just about right there Hawks!!!Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48674908888731391472010-12-22T07:54:40.830-08:002010-12-22T07:54:40.830-08:00Eocene:
I live in the frozen frigid north of Scan...Eocene:<br /><br /><i>I live in the frozen frigid north of Scandinavia. When I come home each day the living room is often a complete mess. Sometimes it happens while I'm present right before my very eyes and it's been suggested that woolly mammoths are doing this by running at Clark Kent(Smallville) super speeds through my house and that's why I don't see them. I've been told that just because I don't see them doing this doesn't mean they don't exist. (MAYA = ILLUSION)</i><br /><br />Yesterday, I witnessed a six-year-old not giving birth to anything. Therefore, humans don't reproduce. Therefore, evolution is false.Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8435452116671884472010-12-22T06:12:39.567-08:002010-12-22T06:12:39.567-08:00Rhod said...
Another person heard from who ap...<i>Rhod said...<br /><br /> Another person heard from who appears to endorse the lamentable, pop trend to smuggle Teleology into (what should be) science. It just makes evolution and all the hard work of men like CDarwin, DrHaeckel and company look very sad, when we see hucksters with "Weasel Generators".</i><br /><br />You still don't understand the the purpose and operation of the Weasel program I see.<br /><br /><i>As I said, can only wish that evolutionism would someday begin to attract a set of new folks with a firm grasp of hard science, math, probabilities. Instead, the almost diagnostic lack of math and probabilities is the norm.</i><br /><br />You forgot to show us your probability calculations and assumptions for your claimed "very high improbabilities" of biological life. I guess that makes you even more ignorant than those evolutionary biologists and geneticists.<br /><br /><i>Thornton does see that forecasting a certain disposition (in this example: of the shattered pieces of glass) is very improbable. Suggests 10^150. But he fails to continue the analogy, and lack of probability, into the even more remote probability of reproducing that identical layout (of shattered glass pieces)..over and over again. </i><br /><br />But DNA --> protein formation isn't random like glass shards. It follows know laws of chemistry and physics. Why should the same chemical reaction occurring under the same conditions <b>not</b> produce similar results each time?<br /><br /><i>The math is fatally against us evolutionists, at this time, and the hypercomplexity of these proteins is a daunting challenge to evolution sciences. </i><br /><br />Who's "us"? Since you've demonstrated zero understanding of actual evolutionary theory or probability, you don't qualify as an evolutionist.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35400622619044180282010-12-22T04:00:52.239-08:002010-12-22T04:00:52.239-08:00blas:
"Luis Pasteur demostrates that life co...blas:<br /><br />"Luis Pasteur demostrates that life come from life. Did you find a falsification?"<br />=====<br /><br />They have something better. It's called modern day computer animation technology where any philosophical concept can come to life via the imaginative rigging by a good anonymous programmer who favours the right side of the worldview power struggle issue!!!Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2558295907395180132010-12-22T03:46:10.780-08:002010-12-22T03:46:10.780-08:00anaxyrus:
"Life could never have arisen from...anaxyrus:<br /><br />"Life could never have arisen from non-living chemicals under any environmental conditions, because no new life arose in my jar of peanut butter last week."<br />=====<br /><br />I live in the frozen frigid north of Scandinavia. When I come home each day the living room is often a complete mess. Sometimes it happens while I'm present right before my very eyes and it's been suggested that woolly mammoths are doing this by running at Clark Kent(Smallville) super speeds through my house and that's why I don't see them. I've been told that just because I don't see them doing this doesn't mean they don't exist. (MAYA = ILLUSION)<br /><br />I don't care what parallel universe you believe you are existing in right now, but I don't see the differences between any of your sides. This mess is NOT about science. It's about politics, ideology, philosophy and WORLDVIEW of all three sides. All three need to be eliminated soon if there is any hope of salvaging what's left of this planet. *wink*Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40521992661290852832010-12-22T03:27:41.734-08:002010-12-22T03:27:41.734-08:00Blas: Zach: "Neal Tedford: Natural processes ...<b>Blas:</b><i> Zach: "Neal Tedford: Natural processes by themselves have been shown to be grossly insufficient to organize the molecules to produce {the first} life. <br /><br />They have? Where? "<br /><br />Luis Pasteur demostrates that life come from life. Did you find a falsification? </i><br /><br />Life could never have arisen from non-living chemicals under any environmental conditions, because no new life arose in my <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXfAduDQpn0" rel="nofollow">jar of peanut butter</a> last week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33562924602671124142010-12-22T03:12:15.866-08:002010-12-22T03:12:15.866-08:00Zach: "Neal Tedford: Natural processes by the...Zach: "Neal Tedford: Natural processes by themselves have been shown to be grossly insufficient to organize the molecules to produce {the first} life. <br /><br />They have? Where? "<br /><br />Luis Pasteur demostrates that life come from life. Did you find a falsification?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77718451394334961832010-12-22T03:11:27.986-08:002010-12-22T03:11:27.986-08:00natschuster:So some proteins don't need heat s...<i><b>natschuster:</b>So some proteins don't need heat shock proteins. Okay. But then how did the proteins that do need heat shock proteins evolve? They couldn't evolve unless the HSP already existed. But the HSP wouldn't evolve because they weren't needed yet.</i><br /><br />Any proteins that are vitally dependent on HSPs could not have become so until after HSPs were present. That said, HSPs are in bacteria as well as humans; they are ancient proteins. Prior to HSPs, there are at least 2 possibilities: 1) life used a smaller set of proteins that did not require HSPs. 2) Some other protein or molecule filled the role of HSPs (but not as well, as HSP life survives whereas pre-HSP life does not). <br /><br />New proteins first appear in cellular environments where they are not absolutely vital; however, their presence may confer an advantage (or at least no substantive disadvantage), and so they may be passed down to descendants. Proteins that don't require HSPs for survival generally would certainly benefit from them if an organism encountered an environment of heat stress (mid-ocean ridges and hot spots come to mind). Over time, the presence of HSPs allows a diversity of proteins to evolve that are utterly dependent upon them. Thus, what was a luxury is now a necessity.<br /><br />A new <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6011/1682.abstract" rel="nofollow"> paper </a>just came out in <i>Science</i> on this very topic (proteins becoming essential due to interactions and arising functions, some in as "little" as 3 million years). A summary can be found <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/new-genes-arise-quickly/" rel="nofollow"> here</a>.<br /><br /><br /><i>And, while I'm prepared to admit my ignorance, along with numerous other defects, I don't think that a lack of self awareness is a problem I suffer from.</i><br /><br />Apologies if that seemed like an insult targeted at you. I put the lack of self-awareness remark right after the Sarfati quote that inspired it. However, now that you brought it up, if you <i>did</i> lack self-awareness, how would you know that you were lacking it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66692179750474550312010-12-22T02:09:35.328-08:002010-12-22T02:09:35.328-08:00Troy:
"Only someone completely unfamiliar wi...Troy:<br /><br />"Only someone completely unfamiliar with the science of evolutionary biology would make such a ridiculous claim, since anyone familiar with the field knows that thousands of mathematicians, engineers and physicists already work in evolutionary biology, and this has been so for decades."<br />=====<br /><br />Why thanks Troy. This certainly explains why our planet's various ecosystems are presently failing and illuminates the ignorant human fingerprint reasons behind our present ecological disaster called climate change. Oh wait a minute, that's right, you guys said climate change is a myth ??? <br /><br />Hmmmmmmmmm !!! *eyes rolling*Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52280373302493595042010-12-22T01:58:59.301-08:002010-12-22T01:58:59.301-08:00Rhod:
"As I said, can only wish that evoluti...Rhod:<br /><br />"As I said, can only wish that evolutionism would someday begin to attract a set of new folks with a firm grasp of hard science, math, probabilities."<br /><br />Only someone completely unfamiliar with the science of evolutionary biology would make such a ridiculous claim, since anyone familiar with the field knows that thousands of mathematicians, engineers and physicists already work in evolutionary biology, and this has been so for decades. <br /><br />Check out any issue of the journal <a href="http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0014-3820" rel="nofollow">Evolution</a> to see for yourself.<br /><br />Or you can meet some for yourself <a href="http://www.impan.pl/~ecmtb11/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I'll buy you a beer if you show up.<br /><br />Finally, <a href="http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/zbook/NewVolume_2/newvol2.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> you can find some free chapters of a textbook in progress, on mathematical models in evolutionary biology. Have fun with it.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39420524822614936042010-12-21T23:59:38.190-08:002010-12-21T23:59:38.190-08:00Thorton said...
Rhod said...
Unfortunately this...Thorton said... <br />Rhod said... <br /><br />Unfortunately this is the sort of bad math and worse science lately seen in evolutionism since the glittering contributions of philosophers such as CDawkins and his Weasel Generator. Worse, it is the ready resort to Teleology. <br /><br />Thornton said,<br />You mean the Weasel program that you totally misunderstood the purpose and operation of.<br /><br />Another person heard from who appears to endorse the lamentable, pop trend to smuggle Teleology into (what should be) science. It just makes evolution and all the hard work of men like CDarwin, DrHaeckel and company look very sad, when we see hucksters with "Weasel Generators".<br /><br />My math is rustier than Bill Occam's razor, but I think that both sides sometimes mischaracterize some probabilities. For any event that is known, that has happened, then the probability now is unity, certainty or 1. If I were to drop a glass jar on the floor and it shatters in all directions, the advance probability that all the tiny pieces would lay out "just so" is extremely improbable. But, once the glass jar has shattered on the floor and we now see the layout of the pieces, then the probability is one, unity, certainty. <br /><br />Thornton said,<br />That means when some IDiot after the fact says "the probability of the glass shards falling exactly that way was 10^150, so it's too improbable that that glass jar fell. The glass shards must have been intelligently placed that way!" you'll know to laugh at him. Right?<br /><br />As I said, can only wish that evolutionism would someday begin to attract a set of new folks with a firm grasp of hard science, math, probabilities. Instead, the almost diagnostic lack of math and probabilities is the norm. Thornton does see that forecasting a certain disposition (in this example: of the shattered pieces of glass) is very improbable. Suggests 10^150. But he fails to continue the analogy, and lack of probability, into the even more remote probability of reproducing that identical layout (of shattered glass pieces)..over and over again. The math is fatally against us evolutionists, at this time, and the hypercomplexity of these proteins is a daunting challenge to evolution sciences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13920962325100611702010-12-21T19:40:40.318-08:002010-12-21T19:40:40.318-08:00john,
There are reasons why it is important to di...john,<br /><br />There are reasons why it is important to distinguish evolution from abiogenesis. Evolution is well understood, while abiogenesis is much more complicated. I am on the side that we might never know how life started on Earth exactly. But pretty sure that we will know it can happen in a number of ways, with no way of knowing which ones might have worked out our history.<br /><br />Another reason is that evolution is quite easy to understand and undeniable once properly understood. Knowing the difference helps break misconceptions about it, and allows for explanations that can be understood by the more general public. By focusing on abiogenesis, or on detailed and misguided representations of what the problems for the evolution of something like a first protein, people who actually know better (such as the host of this blog), protect themselves from being shown wrong. This is why Cornelius won't ever attempt to try and answer my main question before: <b>what is the thermodynamic barrier that appears when reproducing a selected subpopulation that does not appear when reproducing an established population</b>. He rather went for an <i>ad hominem</i>. He knows that if we start here he will be shown to have nothing against evolution proper. Focusing on problems that are easy to misrepresent at many levels (such as protein evolution immersed into a misrepresented origin of life scenario) makes explanations very hard because we first have to work on the many misconceptions. A titanic task.<br /><br />Misguided religion drives his pseudoscience, and it matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56476044229440501092010-12-21T19:17:00.580-08:002010-12-21T19:17:00.580-08:00Given my observation that Cornelius often takes qu...Given my observation that Cornelius often takes quotes out of context to make his points, I went to the BioLogos Foundation and sought for the complete video by Ard Louis.<br /><br />Ard's point is far from the misrepresentation portrayed by Cornelius. The point in the part showed by Cornelius was that it is risky to claim that something is impossible given perceived complexity (I would add to this <b>misrepresented</b> complexity, as he does with the problem of protein evolution). A previous point was that claiming something to be impossible because we don't know how it happens/happened puts ID at par with a god-of-the-gaps argument, most importantly because then where does ID get once science discovers natural paths or processes closing such gaps? (As it has happened many times already.)<br /><br />I don't see how Cornelius would have missed the point other than on purpose. Which is what he obviously, and transparently did with my comments.<br /><br />Misguided religion drives his pseudoscience, and it matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47391069097294946922010-12-21T17:27:10.966-08:002010-12-21T17:27:10.966-08:00Ahh, but I've confused evolution with abiogene...Ahh, but I've confused evolution with abiogenesis again. Tsk tsk.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20868136099440758182010-12-21T17:13:17.767-08:002010-12-21T17:13:17.767-08:00Janfield:
- Virgin births
- Limbs spontaneously gr...Janfield:<br />- Virgin births<br />- Limbs spontaneously growing back<br />- Men walking on water<br />- People brought back from life<br />- Talking donkeys<br />- Floating wooden boxes (built by a handful of people) that contain the entire world's species<br /><br />Oh, it's much worse than you describe. Here's a list to compare to each thing you listed - <br /><br />1.) virgin birth vs born from DUST!<br />2.) limbs growing back vs bodies from ribs!<br />3.) people brought back from death vs from DUST!<br />4.) Talking donkeys vs actual donkey creation!<br />5.) floating wooden arks vs WOOD!<br /><br />I feel that the chances of the existence/occurrence of each thing on the right is much less likely than what you've listed on the left given the fundamental laws of nature. Some people find it hard to believe that limbs could grow back. Some people find it hard to believe that limbs could even exist. When confronted with evidence of the latter, the former seems a trivial admission.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34231621886720564092010-12-21T16:01:39.152-08:002010-12-21T16:01:39.152-08:00Neal Tedford: Acceptance of first life by a creato...<b>Neal Tedford:</b> <i>Acceptance of first life by a creator is not an argument from ignorance but from scientific knowledge of what nature is and isn't capable of doing. Natural processes by themselves have been shown to be grossly insufficient to organize the molecules to produce life.</i><br /><br />"Grossly insufficient" is just your opinion. The only fact is that no one has ever recorded the emergence of entirely new life. Intelligence-guided processes have not been shown to produce life either... but I guess that doesn't matter to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com