It is true that we do not know just how the first cells came into being.
But, given a reproducing cell, evolution hangs together better than any other theory.
Evolution is not about first beginnings. It is about the origin of species by natural selection. If you want to argue that a creator created the first cells a few billion years ago, fine. I will not argue with that possibility. If you want to say that a creator created the universe, with all the fossils intact and the physical evidence for an "old" earth and universe, 6000 years ago, fine. I don't want to destroy your faith.
There were no fossils 6000 years ago; the fossils are the result of the Genesis judgement, about 4500 years ago.
It's too bad that not everyone thinks this way. Elitist liberals enforce their opinions of science on the masses, and in order to do so, they have to sue people into silence to control their godless NEA liberal public schools.It's the only way they're able to succeed.
==I have seen the arguments “evolve” as each of the anti-evolution arguments were destroyed.
Talk, talk, talk.
[[I have seen the arguments “evolve” as each of the anti-evolution arguments were destroyed]]
Oh really? Then you won’t mind stepping up to the plate, gettign beyond mere generalized opinions, and present those anti-ID destroying artiles then? Oh- and I’m NOT itnerested in ‘evidence’ that is NOTHING BUT OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS with NO scientific evidence to support- ‘Destroyed’? Lol- yep- sure it was.
That's essentially what Intelligent Design folks are saying. We don't deny the life has changed and evolved over time. However we do point out that random mutation cannot be the mechanism for that change.
ID proponents do NOT believe in a six-earth-day creation of the world. They believe that evolution within a species happens; that is readily observable and is also called adaptation. They also believe that all life on Earth evolved (through a process not yet understood) from lower forms.
Just because some religious fanatics (Discovery Institute, et al) support the concept does NOT invalidate it.
ID proponents are NOT six day creationists! I suggest you read some of the books and theses by microbiologists and others on the ID concept.
I believe there is some kind of natural law that guides the process of evolution. The idea that random chance first created the basic building block of life (the cell) and then produces these complex changes is ludicrous prima facie.
If some want to call this natural law the hand of God, so what? Yeah, THAT part is not scientific; but to search for the governing law is.
To the die-hard darwinists out there, after nearly 100 years of intensive laboratory effort to show how a creature can change into another, why is it that all that can be done is create minor mutations of the same organism? If we, with DIRECTED EFFORT cannot make such a leap happen, how on Earth do you think random chance accomplished it???
In fairness to Charles Darwin, I believe because of the readily observable phenomenon of adaption, that Darwin, with the knowledge of the nineteenth century, made a reasonable theory about macro-evolution. However, in the past 15-20 years, we have discovered how incredibly complex and organized a SINGLE cell is; that the idea that it all could happen by chance with a random lightning bolt in a “primordial soup” is absolutely ludicrous! You might as well believe that lightning could create a brand new corvette out of a scrapyard!
ID DOES NOT eliminate the scientific method; it gives it another hypothesis to investigate. How were the other “natural laws” discovered? To argue that such could never be proven, is the same argument against Darwinism; it's history, and cannot be proven by the scientific method.
The darwinists today are in the same position as the geocentrists were 500 years ago; refusing to acknowledge that the evidence doesn't support their view, and rabidly persecuting alternate theories. The ONLY reason that the idea there is design to life is condemned is because it threatens the atheism that darwinism supports.
It is time to retire Darwin's theory, and examine other ideas. It's time to brainstorm with the evidence we now have, not treat old theories as dogma.