SuitedPair;356546 wroteso yeah, atheism has a very strong case
A case is very well worded. I appreciate that you didn't use the word fact. This is one of my main objections to Dawkins and the like. The scientific community forgets that the theory of evolution is just that a theory. The naturalist gets to caught up in what they believe “God” wants from them. Why can they be honest and say “I agree that the complexity of life and everything in our known and unknown universe exist in the exact proportions and proper distances from the sun and moon, with the right amounts of elements to sustain life, go beyond the mathematical realm of happening by chance
and I choose not to worship the creator. It least it they would begin to be honest with themselves.
SuitedPair;356546 wroteBiology shows how humans evolved from other primates who evolved from other animals all the way back to cyanobacteria. toss in a little chemistry and it is easy to understand how lightning hitting a pool of organic materials creates the first traces of self replicating molecules (precursors to RNA, DNA ). this has been done in a lab.
Really? This seems like a whole lot of
blind faith to me.
If you are talking about the Miller/Urey, consider this:
Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible":
[INDENT]Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins?*Miller himself*throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation.*"How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."[/INDENT]
As seen, today even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. In the March 1998 issue of National Geographic, in an article titled "The Emergence of Life on Earth," the following comments appear p. 68:
[INDENT]Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia.[/INDENT]
[INDENT]That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules - the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food colouring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.[/INDENT]
Neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
[INDENT]All of us (Miller/Urey) who study the origin of life*find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. [/INDENT]
Notice what he said “We all believe as an article of faith”.
Again honesty. If Miller/Urey is still being taught in the classroom as an example of the theory on how life began (an I believe it is) then there has to be room for a lecture or two to discuss an unknown Intelligent Designer. It is this kind hypocrisy that I find annoying. What is there to be afraid in having an honest discussion and conclude “we may never know”.
I will end with this quote from the
molecular biologist Michael Denton as he discusses the complex structure of the cell from his book
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:
[INDENT]To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? pp. 328, 342 [/INDENT]
Molecular biology and complex structure of the cell is what changed Anthony Flew's mind to admit there must be a designer, much to the dismay of Dawkins.