No, much worse: a lawyer. And not only that, but a lawyer who believes in the Holocaust.

I knew you were no good Anderson! ;-)

While I have your attention, may I say that you are a rude fellow, and a rather undisciplined thinker. Are you a scientist?

No, much worse: a lawyer. And not only that, but a lawyer who believes in the Holocaust.

Being called "rude" logically should not lose its force coming from a Holocaust denier, but I find that it does anyway. Must be that undisciplined thinking.

If science arrayed its talent, and discipline, against the myth of the Holocaust we might get some truth on the subject.

While I have your attention, may I say that you are a rude fellow, and a rather undisciplined thinker. Are you a scientist?

I find it very, very difficult to imagine someone who thinks there's not enough evidence for the Holocaust, but who thinks that there's evidence of ID. If I have misrepresented your beliefs, of course, kindly correct me.

Well I suppose one could hold such a view. I suspect that such a view would be unverifiable, and hence not science. But if that is how you want to look at things, be my guest.

Your argument seems to be that the Creator wanted to create life; so, He created a system of materials, distributed in a certain way, that would, under certain included rules, in the fullness of time, yield up conditions that would result in elements of the materials combining and becoming self replicating.

Anderson is a good example of an evolutionist telling a story which is statistically impossible with no evidence to back it up.

What is statistical impossibility? How small a probability do we need before something is impossible? And what if it happens anyways?

Show me how a simple virus is produced from inert chemicals. Having troublr Anderson? Yes, because no one has ever done it.

Tell us who the designer is? Having trouble? Bet you are since no IDist has to date come forward with even a hint of the designer (well unless the IDers are in front of a friendly religious crowd), let alone any evidence, experiments or predictions. Be consistent now and reject both ID and evolutionary theory.

In fact it has been estimated that there is a 1 in 10 to the 150th power that one molcule in a virus could accidentally form.

This is some Dembski stuff. Unfortunately Dembski's mathematics is very much like 2 + 2 = whatever I say it is. Even more unfortunately, the amount of set up costs to debunk Dembski are rather high.

Please show me the evidence you have that ANY species has ever changed into a different species.

Anderson has given a link to Talk Origins, please go there and read the essays on speciation events. There are plenty of speciation events. Or click on my name on this blog over on the left and scroll down for the post on Dallasaurus turneri which is a transitional fossil for mosasaurs.

You have no examples of change. Lets see… which position is better supported by the evidence at hand?

Ignorance of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is not evidence of ID.

Also, is it reasonable to believe in a god at all? A higher power? Because it seems that, to Christians like myself at least, evolutionists not only decry creationism, but the concept of God generally.

This is a strawman argument. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists and other scientists who believe in evolution that are also deists. They are not mutually exclusive. Granted those that are atheists and they are strident, but is that any worse than some of the things that come out of the mouths of idiots like Pat Robertson?

However, on a subject as complex as the origin of life, is it so preposterous to think that some people might question that life came out of no life?

I'm sorry, but this is just a bit silly. Even if you are a God fearing Christian you believe that life came from non-life. That is precisely what God did. The Christian creation story is a story of abiogensis just as much as the story told by biologists.

The argument reported by anon, as stated, was just ignorant. There is too much educational material out there for someone to believe such stuff unless they just insist on being ignorant.

N.b., btw, that the origin of life isn't really an issue for natural selection. God could drop the DNA molecule into the universe, and Darwinism would proceed unmolested. The biogenesis problem arises precisely BECAUSE Darwinism hasn't been refuted; people who want to insist that God made everything "by hand" have to retreat to the biogenesis issue.

Also, is it reasonable to believe in a god at all? A higher power? Because it seems that, to Christians like myself at least, evolutionists not only decry creationism, but the concept of God generally.

Well, I'm an "evolutionist" (like I'm a "gravitationist," I guess), and a Christian. I can be a Christian without believing that God plucks the autumn leaves from the trees and guides them to the earth. Ditto evolution, natural selection, etc.

There is an easily elided difference between "disdain for God as a substitute for scientific explanation" and "disdain for God, period." I think that is the source of the attitude you're seeing.

Now, for RA's nonsense:

Please make gold from any natural or unnatural process. There is no known processes for elements being changed into higher order elements.

So you don't believe in star evolution either? Admirably consistent of you.

1 in 10 to the 25th power is statistical impossibility.

Given what overall population over how long? It's statistically impossible, I'm sure, that I was born, given the facts required for my parents to have been born & conceived me, for their parents to have been born & conceived them, etc. Yet here I am, wasting time refuting gibberish when I should be working.

As for the no-new-species argument, see the talkorigins link above. I direct not RA to this, because he obviously is not interested in learning anything, but anyone else who might be interested.

Also, is it reasonable to believe in a god at all? A higher power? Because it seems that, to Christians like myself at least, evolutionists not only decry creationism, but the concept of God generally. They give token service to "well, you don't have to disbelieve in God to believe in evolution", but then they seem to disdain anyone who suggests that God had anything to do with it.

This isn't everyone - but it is a large percentage of the public face of evolutionism. That's what bugs me about evolutionists - they seem to look down on anyone who DARES question their beliefs. Again, if it were a subject like math, I could understand. However, on a subject as complex as the origin of life, is it so preposterous to think that some people might question that life came out of no life? Or that the universe came out of nothing? The arrogence with which my beliefs are dismissed puts me off on this one.

Show me how a simple virus is produced from inert chemicals. Having troublr Anderson? Yes, because no one has ever done it. In fact it has been estimated that there is a 1 in 10 to the 150th power that one molcule in a virus could accidentally form. 1 in 10 to the 25th power is statistical impossibility.

An easier task. Lead and gold are one proton apart on the periodic table. I give you lead. Please make gold from any natural or unnatural process. There is no known processes for elements being changed into higher order elements. The big bang is a big bust.

Please show me the evidence you have that ANY species has ever changed into a different species. I have billions of trillions of examples of species reproducing only their own species. You have no examples of change. Lets see... which position is better supported by the evidence at hand?

Evolution is a fairytale for adults who must take it on faith because of the plethora of science that says it could not have happened.

There are two ends of the evolutionary spectrum. Those who are ignorant and don't understand the science. Then there are those who know the science but are in denial because the alternative is too horrible to comprehend. Most evolutionists are a combination of both but continue to worship at the humanist idol of evolution. Blind faith!

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

If you hear anyone citing an alleged reason why Darwinism doesn't work, talkorigins.org should be the first place you go to see what scientists say about it.

Consider the flu virus, which is a jumped-up RNA strand. It replicates very, very badly; anywhere from 90% to 99% of its copies are so flawed, they can't reproduce themselves. But the virus makes it up in quantity--tens of thousands of viruses can be produced in a single bacterium, thus producing sufficient reproducible viruses to cause lots of trouble.

Of course, it's RNA's complexity that makes its reproduction so sensitive. (Hence the evolution of DNA with its "proofreading" mechanism.) Mere self-replicating molecules would have a better success rate.

The reason that educated people are condescending to ID advocates is that ID advocates are full of shit, and it's hard not to be condescending to people who are full of shit.

As for Bryan, he presents basically 2 choices when presented with a complex molecule:

(1) It originated from simpler molecules.

(2) God (or the Martians?) put it there.

How hard a choice is that? Come ON, people.

With respect to DNA as a self replicating chemical, it would still seek to conserve energy and consequently not develop things that didn't contribute to survival. Viruses are often described as self replicating chemicals, but to my knowledge don't develop extraneous parts not needed for survival. And to clarify, the "problematic" statement was mine (a non-scientist) not the biologist.

On another note, I think the McGehee comment is quite right.

He felt they were consistent in relation but clearly not in length. While I doubt that is correct, it was sort of interesting to read.

When I was a kid, I read a book that offered as a theory "not widely accepted" a sequence for the origin of elements of our solar system that had the plants mostly formed before the sun's fusion engine had stabilized. The methane atmospheres of the inner planets were theorized to have been cleared off by a big burst of radiation and gas when the sun's expand-and-contract startup sequence finally got stable fusion started.

Years later, that theory seems to be the prevailing one. As far as I know, all the elements from the Big Bang to the initiation of solar fusion do seem to follow the same sequence as in Genesis. It's only where Genesis starts explaining the rise of life that the sequence breaks away from that theorized by modern science.

I see ID as a way for Christians who don't insist that "six days means six days" to reconcile their belief in the Bible with the findings of science. In a logical world it would only serve to isolate the pure Biblical literalists, which would mean that only the Biblical literalists would be against it.

Instead, many of them have embraced it and put it forward as an alternative to science, with the results we now see. If Biblical literalists were Macchiavellian enough to have planned such an outcome to protect their position, they couldn't have done a better job.