Ah, runner gets pouty.

Your argument: The universe is too big/complex/blahblahblah to "just be". You fail to realise, probably due to childhood brainwashing, that your "explanation" requires that something bigger/complexer/blahblahblah could in fact "just be". That is *less* likely.

Who created your god? Show working.

The universe exists and your "god" *doesn't*. The onus for "god" theories rests on you.

In contrast: "We" have a well-established, well-supported theory of biological evolution. With fossils. With current living examples at various stages of speciation. Confirmed at the molecular level.

Abiogenesis is not trivial, but your own attempt to explain with a fairy-tale is. "We" have a knowledge of molecular cell-biology sufficient to isolate many cell-free systems. We have single molecules that display catalysis, cofactor-binding and template-behaviour. We have cell-free metabolic pathways with few complex catalysts. We established in the sixties the thermodynamic robustness of non-biological catalytic heterocycles that could trap energy sources and transfer the products to other stages. The organic precursors generated in the Miller-Urey experiment can be found in interstellar gas clouds of unimaginable volume and content. Intelligent people are working on this and getting closer to answers.

Where is the progress of science taking us? More confirmation of Darwin's "warm little pond", wherever it may be. Do you really think the next big fossil find will *not* be another intermediate of some sort?

Your "scriptures" were written by *men* with a personal and political agenda, distributed through various debilitating paths and assembled in one volume by a highly-politicised and self-interested editing team. To ignore this excessively inflates their real literary value.

Your unwillingness to clearly contemplate the world shows your heart in worse light than you can accuse me of.

If the "maker" doesn't exist, there is no arrogance. What bogeyman will you threaten with next? Leprechauns?

Again, *which* PhD's support genesis as their published professional opinion. Come on, you *must* know of a *few* second-raters. Surely "idiotic" "pseudo science" has a few detractors willing to put their names to criticism? *I* know some names. Has pastor told you? You just believe what you're told, do you?

Rusty

You might want to check and read in full:

Quotes from Christian scientists about Evolution:

1. Christian B. Anfinsen, (Ph.D. biochemistry, Harvard University, Nobel prize for physics)–
I think only an idiot can be an atheist. 22:139

2. David Berlinsky (Ph.D. mathematics, Princeton University)–

3. Michael Denton (M.D., molecular biologist)–
... evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century.

4. Isaac V. Manly, (M.D., Harvard Medical School)–
[Evolution] is a fairy tale myth. Society has suffered as a result of this adult fantasy... I can assure the reader the American Kennel Club would not certify an ancestor of your dog based on evidence such as paleontologists present. 29:15,117,228

5. Saltationist SØren LØvtrup, Professor of Embryology, University of Umea, Sweden–

6. H.S. Lipson, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology–
... we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.

7. Lemoine, former President of the Geological Society of France, Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, editor of the Encyclopedia Francaise–

8. Ken Hsu, Geological Institute at Zurich, former President of the International Association of Sedimentologists–

9. Louis Neel, Nobel Prize for physics –

10. Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize for physics–
Creation is supported by all the data so far.22:83

11. Thomas C. Emmel, Ph.D. in Population Biology, Stanford University, Professor of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville–
To me, the concept of God is a logical outcome of the study of the immense universe that lies around us…. the evidence is all too pervasive for me to think otherwise.22:171

12. P.C.C. Garnham, M.D., D.Sc., recipient of the Darling Medal and Prize, Emeritus Professor of Medical Protozoology, University of London–
…by faith and by appreciation of scientific necessity, God must exist.22:173

13. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, holder of three earned doctorates in science–

14. Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France–
Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.1:11

http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/24242-debate-creation-evolution.html

and -

Debate between Christian biophysicist Cees Dekker and atheist philosopher Herman Philipse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xwe4n-Tb4c&feature=related

and

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950), M.D., Ph.D., is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29

Personally, I don't have the scientific knowledge or need (anymore) to nit pick through the scriptures. I tend to think that the Bible is a lovely collection of ancient writings of all sorts that convey spiritual truths; and that scientific findings are just wonderful ways of identifying mechanisms by which the world as we know it has come to be. I can't read Hebrew nor any form of Greek language, and I have my reservations about translators. I do understand the vagaries of historical and cultural circumstance that is unavoidably connected to any person's writings and interpretations. All up, I am fascinated by reading the information that everyone puts forward but I don't understand why everything needs to be constructed as a dichotomy between spiritual knowledge and everything else.

Anyway, one of the things I also find fascinating is that people who claim to reject Christianity can't help but hover around questions about it. That's a good thing!

Ah pynchme,

Well done! you can google!

These people *really* think evolution is "pseudo science" and support the "genesis account"?

You might want to check and read in full yourself, as homework.

Your first example: Anfinsen, in "The molecular basis of Evolution" (1959, reprinted 1964 Wiley Science Editions) examines evolutionary concepts in the molecular detail available in the fifties. Just leafing through my copy over a cuppa....
Page 213 "The study of biochemical evolution has already been of considerable value in the establishment of biological interrelationships"
page 219 "the evolution of the horses during the past 60,000,000 years has involved at least eight distinct genera"
page 222 "It will have been well worth the effort if it can help to stimulate the growing interest in evolution as the central theme in the life sciences"

I say that the quote you present is creationist wishful thinking, as opposed to his sustained and considered professional opinion on biological matters. Do you think that is honest scholarship? Good enough for womens studies and fundies?

The book whose blurb you found is a common type of creationist literature, a desperate quote-mining screed of the shallowest nature. "First cause" is a pet speculation of many physicists and almost any scientist might "leave the door open" here or there. Reading their actual scientific work does not give much comfort to literalists. Cyclic universes, inanimate initiators, remote deism, no prayers answered, no souls delivered. Quote-miners leap on it and try and talk it up as support for their dogma.

Regarding Francis Collins: Read your own reference. His position is theistic evolution and he rejects literal creationism. Hardly support of genesis, nor even a scratch on evolution. While *a* director of the genome project, he took over once it was business-as-usual. The *founding* director was atheist.

The dichotomy you object to is the unwillingness of fundies to acknowledge ground long lost and now justly claimed by knowledge and hard work. Runner wants religion to regain this and is willing to discard intellectual honesty and genuine understanding to get it. Are you?

The truth will make ye fret!

Rusty

Pynchme,

Caught out of course as the "true believers" often are...either taking quotes out of context or even making false implications such as

"7. Lemoine, former President of the Geological Society of France, Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, editor of the Encyclopedia Francaise–" which is supposed to make us assume he favoured creation when the truth is...

"Paul Lemoine was an atheist, and he was against the theory of evolution because he felt it was not a good explanation of the origin of living beings and by showing its limits risked to discredit materialism. Although this point was not very clear we believe that when he spoke of "the theory of evolution" he was actually addressing the explanation of specifically [how] evolution [occurred] and not the [more general idea] of evolution itself."

Clearly said gentleman was not happy with evolution but still didn't believe in God.

Use the following link to research this quote and many other Pynchme et al "anti-evolution" attributions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

Arguing against evolution by the fact that notable people reject it is no different from eating a breakfast cereal because a football player endorses it. It has nothing to with the validity of evolution or the merits of the cereal.

One disagrees with science by showing through observation, evidence or theory that it is not valid not by citing authority whatever that authority may be.