10 Categories of Evidence For ID

Jerry, thank you for the information. I want to add this to your explanation. Miller and Urey tried to synthesize life int he lab. All that they found was amixture of basic amino acid Glycine.Problems with this mixture: 1) They were able to synthesize only Glycine. In nature we have 20 different amino acids which form peptides to make proteins. Protein is incomplete without other amino acids. 2) this mixture also contained a racemic mixture having biologically active L-form and biologically incative(poison) D-form. In a mixture of 50/50 D and L forms, no further activity will occur. No reaction proceeded any further. This is the only experiment that was done.Chemical evolution is next to impossibility. Why? For protein synthesis to occur, a preformed complete cellular architecture is a prerequisite. So, far, no one has been able to synthesize a living cell. Why? To transform a mixture of chemicals into a functional living cell, life is necessary. We still do not understand what is life. Life is not simply a bunch of chemicals. Evolution does not explain this. Chemcical Evolution cannot occur as Chemcial and physical laws do not facilitate Evolution.For amino acids to self assemble into proteins, the chances are 1 in more than 10 raised to the power of 42. Such a process is a statistical improbability. The only other option is the cells were designed all at once and life processes began at once. This cannot occur without an Intelligent designer. Protein sysnthesis is very complex. To say that proteins self evolved is nothing but arrogance and pride with no proof in Science.

Thanks for mentioning these names. I will look into their work.

First of all, I never claimed to know everything. If I said, I will be a fool. I am still learning. From everything you write, I see where you are coming from. I studied the Urey Experiment and what I wrote is correct. If you have any other information on this, can you post it here?This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-09-2006 10:07 PM

I would be perfectly happy to say to the IDists "Yes, fine. We don't know enough about the bacterial flagellum to state with absolute certainty whether it was designed. If you want, you can say it was designed. Now go away."A deck of cards do not organize. Pieces of any puzzle do not self organize. When we look at the nature, we have the ecological balance. Why should we have it? How did it come into existence? Each species is dependent on the other one or many more. Where is the need for such a balance if random choice and survival of the fittest apply?

very simple question to you. I have been told that we had acommon ancestor and we have evolved from apes. Alright. What do we become after mankind? If we are still evolving, then we must disappear and a new species must begin. Can you predict what will we become? Humanoid perhaps!!!!

Alright, we will not disappear. What will we become? I am not aMormon. But, Mormons believe that through aprocess of evolution, man can become a God. Hindus also believe that through evolution, man can become one with God. I cannot believe any of these two. However, from the Scientific point of view, what will we become?

According to the assumptions by Mormons, Hindus and evolutionists, if we do not become Gods, then may be we will devolve??? Into what??????? This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-15-2006 02:44 PM