Dear OUG,

PTP gave you a lucid post.

Why don't you reply to the questions he asks?

PART 3 & clarifications

UOG,
You did ask for some links. Try the Evolution v's Creationism Home Page.
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ORIGINS/origins.html

You also made the challenge regarding the impossibility of 'ambiogenesis' which I will assume you

mean that life spontaneously arose
. Does this invalidate biological evolution as being natural?

Also- wanted to ask. Are you saying that;

1. All life is too complex to be explained (the complexity argument) and was therefore designed - and

therefore.
2. A supernatural force or principle was the initiating and guiding agency? (an intelligent designer)

> If so, please explain the causal link. Why does this *necessarily* follow and have you discounted all

other reasonable explanations? Take a scientific, philosophical or theological view - your choice.

Also. So that we can all have a basis for discussion;

a. do you allow the possibility of extraterrestrial biological life?
a.1. sentient or not?
a.2. technologically advanced or not?

b. can you also state if we can allow for the possibility that coherent patterns (design) are an inherrent

property of matter? Perhaps an emergent property guided by maximal efficiency?

c. is the supernatural agent (alias god) a personal entity or an impersonal force?
and

d. if it could *resonably* be demonstrated that life could be self generating from basic matter *as

though* it was designed (but without showing the need for an actual designer) and that life could

evolve from basic forms to complex entities with sentience - would you abandon the need for a

supernatural force as designer?

Finally, what degree of proof would you require?

[greetings wobbles]

Also - looking forward to finding out just exactly what was the question again?

_PTP

I've got a basic knowledge of electronics. I understand the basics of how my TV at home works. I could probably explain enough to give someone who wanted to know a start on understanding.

If challenged to explain the most difficult technical issue about the workings of the TV to someone who believed that what we see in a TV was a lot of little people running around and some very clever staging I'd not be able to do so. I could refer that person to texts on electronics, I might provide some links to those who can explain it well but I'd not be able to explain it myself.

I've not dismantled my TV so I have no way to prove that my specific TV does not contain small people and a good props department.
My belief that the contents of my TV are based around electronics rather than small people is based on the opinions of "experts" and my own judgement about what is credible and what's not.

Regardless of how many people have believed in "little people" throughout history or how strongly some believe in them now my inability to explain the most detailed workings of my TV to someone who does not want to accept the idea of electronics does not mean that I should start believing that my TV is populated by little people.

R0bert

Dear one under god,

Science has been asking some of the same questions that you have asked. There are already some answers. An important experiment showed that amino acids could come from inorganic matter. The following is a bit about the experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

The Miller–Urey experiment (or Urey–Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Soviet scientist Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.
Re-analysis published in October 2008[6] of material from the experiments showed 22 amino acids rather than 5 were created in one apparatus.[7] In particular, the experiment that was thought to simulate a volcanic eruption was examined. These new results provide stronger evidence that biological molecules can form from simple reactants.

End of extract

However, the above neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. God could have arranged things so amino acids were produced in that fashion. The above neither proves nor disproves the Bible as the word of God. One does not have to take the Bible literally to believe in God. The creation story in Genesis is consistent with human scientific knowledge when Genesis was written.

The Bible has obvious contradictions internally and a literal interpretation is incompatible with our present knowledge. However, the creation story could be an allegory for the coming of life to earth, and the parables of Jesus and some of the other narratives could be a pattern for a desirable way to behave.

There are Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other scientists who believe in their sacred books as containing allegory and wisdom and also try to answer the questions you raise. However, literal belief is incompatible with common sense, scientific knowledge and logic.

Here is a statement issued by the American Society for Microbiology on the Scientific Basis for Evolution 2006. This kind of information from a respected, trusted and highly reputed scientific organization works for me. Using creationist sites to 'study' evolution will only give you a one sided view, can I suggest you try both sides of the argument.

http://www.asm.org/Media/index.asp?bid=45937

Knowledge of the microbial world is essential to understanding the evolution of life on Earth. The characteristics of microorganisms—small size, rapid reproduction, mobility, and facility in exchanging genetic information—allow them to adapt rapidly to environmental influences. In microbiology, the validity of evolutionary principles is supported by [1] readily demonstrated mutation, recombination and selection, which are the fundamental mechanisms of evolution; [2] comparisons based on genomic data that support a common ancestry of life; and [3] observable rates of genetic change and the extent of genomic diversity which indicate that divergence has occurred over a very long scale of geologic time, and testify to the great antiquity of life on Earth. Thus, microorganisms illustrate evolution in action, and microbiologists have been able to make use of the microbes’ evolutionary capacity in the development of life-improving and life-saving innovations in medicine, agriculture, and for the environment. By contrast, proposed alternatives to evolution, such as intelligent design and other forms of creationism, are not scientific, in part because they fail to provide a framework for useful, testable predictions. The use of the supposed "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum as an argument to endow nonscientific concepts with what appears to be legitimacy, is spurious and not based on fact. Evolution is not mere conjecture, but a conclusive discovery supported by a coherent body of integrated evidence. Overwhelmingly, the scientific community, regardless of religious belief, accepts evolution as central to an understanding of life and the life sciences. A fundamental aspect of the practice of science is to separate one’s personal beliefs from the pursuit of understanding of the natural world. It is important that society and future generations recognize the legitimacy of testable, verified, fact-based learning about the origins and diversity of life.

PART 4
Dear UOG, I have to thank you for this challenge and I don't believe I've done your question justice.

You asked;

"Evolutionists [stand up] EXPLAIN your ambiogenesis
that 'first cell that evolved via natural selection
that is the first evolution [in theory]"

OK - I'm going to be honest. I personally can't explain it to you.
I don't fully understand it myself. There are gaps in my knowledge.

* So I'm now going to consider my options. *

OPTION 'A' Reasoned Enquiry
> observe the world around me
> detect uncertainties and anomalies
> learn what others have theorised before
> learn more - consult those who I believe should know
> evaluate what they say by using my critical thinking skills
> seek views from opposing sides of the debate
> ask good questions - be open to the replies
> form an opinion based on understanding
> *test* that opinion on what I am able to percieve and what I am able to reason
> re-visit my opinion and be prepared to revise my beliefs if & when new information arises
[even if this contradicts my cherished beliefs]
> continue to refine my understanding - learn more

OPTION 'B' Inherited Faith
> observe the world around me
> detect uncertainties and anomalies
> learn what others have said before
> accept imposed explanations without questioning
> rely on untestable phenomena & unverifiable sources
> rely on theories based on supernatural forces
> substitute 'blind' faith for critical thinking
> disguise selected facts as the final and complete word
> reject evidence that I don't agree with
> never refine my beliefs over time....
> attack those who have opposing beliefs

'A' approximates the accumulation of reliable knowledge from uncertainty
'B' represents static belief and superstition to banish uncertainty

I'll be reading your links to see what I can learn.

Have a nice day.
_PTP