The Theory of Evolution covers only the study of biological life after it first emerged
That statement is true only in certain circles, and depends on your own point of view, and is influence by whom you listen to. It's a result of changing horses in mid-stream after finding your horse can't swim. The study of evolution cannot avoid dealing with origins, whether it's the origin of a horse or a frog or an amoeba. How else do you decide where to start your evolutionary studies? Darwinian evolution has long been an accepted explanation for the origin of life by many biologists. The book was indeed titled, the origin of species (not the origin of life, but the broad sector of mammals (as opposed to plants)). Darwin himself started with finches, but found it impossible to delve into his theory without reaching back to some sort of beginning (i.e. "origins"). I don't see how evolutionists can make your claim that you do while keeping a straight face. Take a look at an excerpt from the "foreword" of a recent edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species":
From the foreword of Darwin's Origin of Species:
qsAs we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among
biologists, not only about the causes of evolution, but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is
unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is
therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to disagreements about evolution[/qs]
(I can get you actual edition, etc. if you'd like; don't have it handy at the moment).
I'm really glad that this evolutionist is concerned about our lack of understanding. Our forum topic would be so much shorter if evolutionists would pay attention to their own darwinian textbook. The true experts freely admit that the scientific community cannot come to any agreement of the origin of species. Are we just missing this, or are we ignoring it like we tend to ignore the creator?
Take the Stanley Miller, "origin of life experiment" that they teach
the kids in schools. They teach that basic elements which existed billions of years ago (hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor) produced or morphed into the "basic building blocks of life" (amino acids) after lightening struck the water. Miller's experiment is supposedly evidence of that. What they don't teach is that Miller's experiment was initially a series of miserable failures, producing only "muck" at the bottom of countless test tubes. He didn't produce his "desired" (yes, desired) result until he significantly "manipulated his apparatus" enough to actually get the results that he did. But, even in Miller's carefully controlled environment, it still required a high degree of intelligence driven precision to produce these basic building blocks of life. Oh, and Miller was only able to produce TWO (2) of the amino acids needed for life (prize question: How many amino acids are necessary for life?). The obvious problem with Miller's experiment is that there were no chemists around billions of years ago to manipulate things.
But the most devastating problem Miller had was that his experiment
did not predominantly produce amino acids. The breakdown of the
experiment's products were 13% COOH, 1.05% glycine, 85% tar, and 0.85% alanine. Obviously, the amino acids had a major problem, since the tar would end their short existence, and the process of natural selection would never have gotten off the ground.
Do you now see why evolution cannot be separated from origins?
Perhaps what you're really trying to say, instead of "evolution", is "natural selection" (the main ingredient of evolution, which includes vast stretches of time). And I fully agree with the idea of natural selection. It's clear that a 250 pound 12 point whitetail deer will most likely deprive the perceived reproduction rights of a scraggly 110 pound spike buck, eventually resulting in a nice herd of available trophy deer. If a favorable mutation occurs, we may wind up with a herd of 300 pound 16 point deer. The likes of this has been observed, and is repeatable as many commercial breeders have demonstrated with various common creatures. But we have never observed a dominant deer, or any deer morph into anything other than a deer. The fossil record offers no trace of evidence, nor can we produce the effect even under controlled lab conditions. Morphing happens primarily in Hollywood-style productions, not in real-life. As to Miller's experiment, your librarian can help you find info on other problems with Miller's experiment, that make it clear that life could not possibly have started when evolutionists say it did. Staunch evolutionists can defend Miller's results only by becoming ludicrously argumentative.
Do you mean what caused the big bang? I have no idea. I have no
idea if it even has a cause.
An effect as huge as the big bang coming into existance without a cause? If you believe that you have enough faith to move mountains. Certainly more faith than is necessary to believe
in a supernatural being who resides outside of our time-space
dimension.
Do you mean where did the first replicator come from? Simple
chemistry, probably acted out in a geothermal vent. Probably. We're
not really sure yet.
I mean, quite simply, where did it all start and what was the cause? In denying the powerful existence of an intelligent being, you seemed content with the idea that there was no cause. Refer back to Miller's experiment (the one that inadvertently provided more
evidence to falsify Darwinian evolution than otherwise).
The Boeing 747 was designed, as you know. I imagine your hoping
that we'll let you generalise from that to life. Trouble is, life has
only the tiniest similarity to a Boeing 747, and we have compelling
evidence showing it needs no designer.
I'm not compelled. The simplest cell is much more complex than a 747. Otherwise, why can't we create even a simple form of life?
(Obligatory sidenote pointing out that evolution does not require
or imply atheism)
Sorry, but you just confused Darwinian evolution with Theistic
evolution. Like you, Darwin also lost his faith, and left God out of
his theory of origins. How can you drive a Chevy while denying
General Motors corp? Darwin simply rebelled against God. The only way he could get his ridiculous theory off the ground was by selling it to anti-semites by placing the "Jew" at the bottom of his scale (labeled "animal" or "non-human") and, what Darwin labeled as the "negro" just barely above the "Jew". Had Darwin not stooped this low, his theory would probably have died from lack of support. Yes, yes, I understand this has been revised over the decades, but according to an article in Time magazine:
In 1927, Osborn, along with other evolutionists, created a diagram of man's evolution. Skulls were displayed in progressive order. #1 in the sequence was the fraudulent Piltdown Man. #4 was a Neanderthal; #6 Cro-Magnon Man. #8 was labeled "Australian" (aborigine). #9? "Negro." #10? "Chinese." #11 (and last)? "Caucasian."
That, and the overall concept of Darwinian evolution was all Adolph Hitler needed to make his point in his infamous book most popular amongst anti-semites. Information like this never ceases to flabbergast me.
There's another thing I don't know. How is that saying 'god did
it' is any more satisfactory than saying 'I don't know'.
Finally, we get to the actual point. The key ingredient is rebellion
against God. You basically stated that you don't believe in God
anymore, and have replaced him with "I dont know". A person of any
age doesn't need to understand the mechanics of a jet engine when
flying to a vacation spot. But to deny the existence of a
manufacturer, then insisting it's ok to say "I don't know" would be
unwise. It's axiomatic that a building was built by a builder. The
building may have been built 300 years before my birth, unobserved by
me, but that the builder built it is irrefutable. It's just as
axiomatic as a geometric line extending in opposite directions to
infinity. It's never been observed, and can't be photographed, but
yet it requires no proof to join the ranks of the axioms. "...in the beginning, God created the heavens..." (God being one who resides in another time-space dimension), isn't nearly as hopeless as "...in the beginning, the superatom created itself).
™ Version 4.2
