wilsoncole
Active Member
Man, reading this analogy was like reading Kent Hovind's Dissertation!
Had you known ANYTHING about TOE, you would have known that it starts somewhere like "in the middle." It requires a starting point, but is not concern with what that starting point looks like. So, if GOD, or Santa Claus, or Wilsoncole provided the "starting point" that fine for evolution. Therefore, your analogy would be more useful if you compare it with standing at the first or second floor and looking out; from the "foundation" looking up.
You're skirting around the issue, just like every other atheist. Try dealing with it directly.
Do you want me to show you what journals respected by evolutionists say about that "spontaneous" beginning?
Here's one.
Hang on!
"Overall it can be said that puzzle pieces are starting to come together in such a way that the scientific assumption of a spontaneous origin of life from non-living matter finally has achieved plausibility on the level of experimental evidence.
While research in the field now appears vastly more promising than just a decade ago, the science on the origin of life is, compared to the science of biological evolution, still considerably underdeveloped in its explanatory power. As Richard Robinson notes (Robinson 2005):
Give biologists a cell, and theyll give you the world. But beyond assuming the first cell must have somehow come into existence, how do biologists explain its emergence from the prebiotic world four billion years ago?
Indeed, it is one thing that we know all the chemical building materials of life, and that the functioning of life can be fully explained by their collaboration in an extremely complex system. Yet it is another thing entirely how, at the origin of life, they could have formed an initial organization by themselves step by step (via whatever intermediary processes and building blocks). At first glance, evolution from LUCA, a precursor of bacteria, to humans may seem childs play in comparison: it started from an already tremendously complex, entirely self-sufficient, biochemical machinery and bit by bit simply made it even more complex.
All the proteins produced from these genes are involved in a maze of pathways of metabolism, replication, as well as building and maintenance of structure, which is of bewildering complexity.
In fact, how else than through such a minimum amount of complexity, could even a primitive cell have met the just mentioned basic demands? How could such a vastly complex network of more than 200 proteins have arisen by itself? One might ask: would it not have to have arisen at once? Yet evidence suggests that all this complexity may have evolved, step by step, from very simple beginnings.
Of course, if life arose in deep-sea hydrothermal vents (see below), the composition of Earths early atmosphere would become largely irrelevant. To a certain extent, this also holds true for organic building blocks delivered (?????) to the earth by interplanetary dust particles and on carbonaceous meteorites."
(The Origin of Life)
I see only one speculation after another. Not a shred of evidence!
Is this the kind of material recommended to young students of biology?
Do you realize that you sound much more confident than they do?
BTW - Who is Kent Hovind?
