For anyone interested in knowing more about the origin of life, and the problems associated with it (from the perspective of evolution), then I have a link. Its actually based on a website that is offering $1 million to whoever can show how life can spontaneously form.
The link is from an ID website, but all they do is dissect the evolutionist webpage and put it into more layman-like terms. Its a good read, and shows how futile it is to take a creator out of the picture. Of course, once the creator is out of the picture, we have to wonder why it makes so much sense that life can design itself after its inception, so I don't expect you to take it seriously. But for those of us who's critical thinking skills haven't been corrupted by evolutionary indoctrination, its a good read.
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i12f.htmI think its funny that evolutionists (namely the corporation or whatever offering this money) don't want these questions exposed to the public. And until now (when harvard recently offered $1 million for the same purpose) no one but scientists were supposed to hear about questions like these? These otherwise skeptical questions of evolution are only to be asked within the scientific community where they are expected to be answered. Why not let the public know about the huge gaps that materialism (philosophy aside, you have to admit that scientists are working from the assumption that there can be no divine intervention in life) has? I don't get it...
I'm sure I'm the only one who's sickened by the fact that, despite all evidence pointing contrary to the idea of life spontaneously forming, its still taught as fact in schools. If christians supposedly invented indoctrination, we're certainly not the ones perpetuating it now.
Miller failed decades ago, and where he's failed, years of the promise of a million dollar prize has still refused to expose the possibility.
I think its safe to say this cuts to the heart of evolution, no? If there is some sort of divine intervention in the origin of life, then you have no excuse for dismissing it in the creation of the variety of life we see today.
So you have still to come up with a naturalistic explanation for life's origin if you want to save evolution as a serious theory (apart from all the other problems with it).
Anyway, back to studying genetics. Right now I'm on different kinds of mutations. Interesting stuff, it is.
My favorite part is how all the examples that they use of mutations are some kind of horrible disease or defect. Evolution cracks me up. Don't get me wrong, these diseases are horrible, but since one out of 100s of mutation-caused diseases lead to resistance to malaria, that means all of these diseases are evolution in action. That's classic.
Is it okay, by the way, if I start a new thread for mutations? Or would that be overkill. Its just, my post explaining why mutations cannot be the back bone of evolution is going to extremely lengthy, and I don't want it to cloud the general discussion of evolution vs science.
