If, in another 20 years we'll be able to create life from "scratch" using amino acids, it will STILL have nothing to do with the Theory of evolution.
Also, I would like to see you create life from "scratch" using amino acids by FIRST creating the amino acids, etc.
You sound mightily impressed with yourself. There will come a time when you'll see some objective truth to having a Creator. Whether you discard the notion at that time is your choice, of course.
I'd choose wisely.
Noplace. They'll smugly trot out the same old pointless "you-get-your-own-dirt" parable.
The evolutionist version goes like this:
A bunch of scientists figured out all the secrets of life. They said to God, "We don't need you anymore. We can do all of this ourselves."
And God said, " ."
So the men said, "You want to see us to make a man out of dirt? We can do it, you know."
God said, " ."
The men said, "Hello, is anybody there?"
And God said, " ."
Eventually one of the scientists suggested they stop wasting their time, and they went back to their labs to get some work done.
In other words in 20 years evolutionists will prove that it takes intelligence to create life. I'll buy that.
LOL Is your name Ms. Cleo?
Don't bet the farm on this 'prophecy' of yours.
Where will you go when they don't? You must expect the laws of chemistry to change in 20 years. Another "expert" in chemistry said it would be done in 50 years. You're a little more optimistic on the change.
They said the same thing 20 years ago.
And of course you prefer to continue the old BS about the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 odds of earth spawning life randomly.
And LOL -- Who do think you are -- Houdini?? Until you can pull out of your hat one iota of "life" out of "scratch," your happy little fantasy remains...just that.
So, you're saying in 20 years, intelligence will design life using amino acids? Which creationist argument is affected by that?
On the other hand, demonstrating random, spontaneous, undirected, self-assembly of amino acids under prehistoric environmental conditions, and from there nucleic acids and finally life... now, THAT may have an impact on the creationist arguments...
I doubt it. I'm taking a break from from about 300 pages of cell notes for a test in the morning. If science is even able to reporduce a single signaling cascade in 20 years I'll be impressed. Life is too complex for it to ever be made in a lab at this time, let alone 20 years. Give humans a 1000 years and maybe . . .
Right where they have always been. That life requires a CREATOR.
While it appears there is some scientific validity to micro-evolution within species over great periods of time, there is nothing in the scientific literature that clearly substantiates macro-evolution. What good is a billion year process of random mutations, translocations, and deletions if the vast majority of these molecular changes are detrimental to the host? Even if the mutation had no immediate negative or positive effect upon a chemical reaction, what good is it if one can only "hope" that it is to be followed by umpteen further random molecular changes which "may" ultimately confer a minicule advantage to the cell???
Now that's what I call Positive Thinking. If I just stand here in the Mohave Desert with my thumb out eventually a 57 mint Chevy with 4 (count'em) 4 beautiful naked blond UCLA coeds with a case of ice-cold beer will give me a ride and offer to have my children..........ok, it might happen........! But, I doubt it!
The reason is quite simple. Mutations occur on a molecular scale. The vast majority of molecular mutations (that is to say the end effect they may have upon an individual cell) are usually seen as negative negative and provide no distinct advantage to the cell or cellular process(es) it affects.
The clotting process of blood is an extremely complicated cascade of proteins and enzymatic relationships. One strains to imagine the plethora of random mutations that would have had to have occurred fortuitously to produce such a complicated pathway...especially since any random mutation that did not immediately confer a molecular or cellular advantage upon its host would be deleted.
What is the advantage of a random mutation that will yet require 10 or 20 future random mutations to complete what is supposed to be a pathway of such complication that it took modern science decades to unlock the secrets of blood clotting?
Now if you know of macro-events where say a land mammal, in a sudden and unexplained generational change altered its family or order, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it.
It is much easier to see intelligent design in the complexity of life around us than it is to believe that Darwin's theory of evolution clearly, definitively, finally, and totally provides an unambiguous answer to where we came from.
So from a person such as yourself who has firmly predicted the formation of "life" from amino acids within the next 20 years, it comes as no surprise that you would hold Darwin up as your saviour. Naturally, you are entitled to your opinion, as were many of the so-called "great thinkers" of the past who were ultimately shown to be either incorrect or charlatans.
Since you seem extremely knowledgeable re: "life" perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what "life" is? What type of "force" is it? How did it begin, how does it begin, how does it end, how is it created, by whom was it created, how does one analyze it, bottle it, re-create it, define it, capture it??? I, for one, would love to hear your exposition!
Your time on Earth is but a vapor. Your body will die and you will meet your maker.