Dear Vanna,

“Atoms are matter, and of course matter and energy are interchangeable (E=MC^2).However, for a chemical bond to form, there has to be suitable conditions, suitable activation energy, and suitable catalysts should they be required. Just having the right atoms in an enclosed space doesn’t automatically create a chemical compound.”

Thanks. But that is not what I was asking: Rather, do you agree that “before” life we have inorganic matter and that after organic life is created, said organic living things are reducible to inorganic matter?

I didn’t claim having “the right atoms in an enclosed space doesn’t automatically create a chemical compound”. (Though, compounds can be induced.)

Instead, I have made several references to a replicator: Perhaps a primitive form of an RNA-like substance (and there are other theories).

Regarding valency, normally, we do not have electron exchanges penetrating any deeper than one shell and, in the case of inert gases, none (that is why inert gases are used in some lights). If, even a amount tiny matter became pure energy released in terms of the Theory of Relativity, there would be a huge explosion:

http://www.anl.gov/Science_and_Technology/History/Anniversary_Frontiers/aetofdr.html

And even here Einstein is discussing an inefficient device compared to real E=mc2.

OUG,

Thanks for that clarification. Herein, you see the Bible as an allegory and not to be taken literally with regards many of its stories. You hold that Bishop Ussher was wrong. That surprises me in a nice way.

Runner ... Do you agree with OUG? How old is the Earth?

Trav… How old is the Earth?

Hello Davidf,

Agree the creation of synthetic life is different to duplicating the historical creation of life. We are just at Kitty Hawke in that regards. It would be good to be alive to see the biologicial Space Shuttle. I guess it depends on grants and the state of other sciences (e.g. quantum mechanics).

Trav,

Don’t worry about it. I’m quite comfortable with being labelled “arrogant” on the topic of religion.

The reason you’ll often see me say “creationism” rather than “ID”, is because ID is simply a devious and sneaky way of trying to get religion around the constitution and through the backdoor into science classrooms. For all intents and purposes, ID is creationism, so I refuse to legitimise ID due to its deceitful origins.

If you want the full story on the birth of ID, simply Google “Of Pandas and People”. Some of it’s actually quite funny, like the word-processing ‘find-and-replace’ bungle when trying to remove the word “god” from the original print of the book, Of Pandas and People.

<<I guess all those phds who agree that a case can be made for intelligent design must be retarded then?>>

I said “bordering on mental retardation”. But yes, they do certainly have a thinking disorder of some sort, because anyone with a PHD who believes in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, and goes against all the evidence - like creationism - is tot ally delusional.

What disappoints me about this remark though is that it suggests that you think creation “scientists” might actually be onto something, when I had always picked you to be one of the more rational Christians who accept evolution.

<<So what you're effectively saying here is, that if God existed, you'd expect direct scientific evidence that he exists? Is that your view?>>

Yes, that’s my view. Because anything that exists manifests in reality, and anything that manifests in reality is measureable, demonstrable and verifiable. If you want to claim that god transcends all that, then fine, but in that case you have no way of differentiating between your god and something that doesn’t exist. That might be acceptable to you, but it’s not acceptable to me because I care about my beliefs being true.

Another point is that you can’t claim that god transcends the known world and then, at the same time, claim to know who this god is.

Continued...

...Continued

“God is beyond our understanding” is usually just another way of saying, “I don’t have a rational answer for that so I’m just going to make something up because facing the reality that my beliefs don’t make sense is too uncomfortable”.

<<Has it occurred to you that it isn't possible for something to be an "answer" to anything without asserting something?>>

By “assert”, I mean, without any good reason to believe that the assertion is true.

Vanna,

I would have thought a thank you was in order considering I answered a question that you seem to have wanted to know for a long time. Perhaps even a retraction of your claim that I “mindlessly follow the theory of evolution”.

Instead, you simply continue in your search for a gap in our knowledge that your god can hide in - a search that has so far proven fruitless - as if nothing ever happened.

You creationists are very rude people.

<<There is no doubt that genetic mutations do occur, although the vast majority of genetic mutations disadvantage an organism, rather than improve its chances of survival.>>

Incorrect.

The vast majority of genetic mutations are neutral. Only a very small percentage are bad. A very small percentage are good too.

Pelican you are dreaming when you write

'The difference is that there is more evidence for evolution than creationism.'

You obviously have to twist observance to fit your theory or you are blind to the obvious. At least you are admitting that their is some evidence for creation unlike other deniers of science.

Pelican

Where? See above :)

Runner

Meet your Islamic counterparts.

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58281

Go on, join up. It's a "marriage made in heaven". You may even qualify for 72 virgins.

LOL