Intelligent Design is not creationism

megamanXplosion wrote:

real life wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
I highly doubt even Rosborne would agree with that. When Rosborne replied to you earlier (here) (s)he stated the biosphere (Earth) receives energy from the Sun and the Sun releases energy--thus, (s)he indicated that both are open systems. Rosborne seems to be the victim of a careless choice of words (here) than anything else. There is evidence of this in how (s)he laughed (here) when you accused him/her (here) of stating there are no open systems. This indicates that (s)he does think there are open systems. In essence, you have framed your argument on wording semantics than the gist of Rosborne's argument.

Earlier you asked me to name a closed system inside the Universe (here) but I decided to let others answer for me since it seemed so simple of a challenge. Apparently that did not work very well. It seems that you are confused about the differences between an open system, a closed system, and an isolated system. An open system is one where energy and matter can enter and escape. The socks on your feet, the engine in an automobile, the ocean, the Earth, the Sun, the galaxy, etc. are all open systems. A closed system is one where energy can enter and leave but matter cannot. A stopped wine flask, sealed TV dinner, vacuum-packed pickle jar, etc. are all closed systems. An isolated system is one where energy and matter cannot enter or leave. There are no such things as isolated systems and they are nothing more than idealized constructs. Even an asteroid a trillion miles away from any object cannot be an isolated system because it would be absorbing energy from the cosmic background radiation.

Name a naturally occurring 'closed system' using your definition.

What do you hope to accomplish by asking this question? It seems like you just wish to be irritating. It does not take much effort to think of one: an asteroid. But I shall stop beating around the bush now...

Are you saying that matter is never added to or lost from an asteroid? Think again.

megamanXplosion wrote:

Evolution and abiogenesis do not contradict the concept of entropy. The chemicals postulated by abiogenesis combined--did "work"--by utilizing a free supply of energy. Energy is never used 100% efficiently so there is an increase in entropy. This is why perpetual motion machines cannot exist. While the chemicals combined and created a local decrease in entropy the overall entropy of the system (the Universe) increased. The energy provided to do "work" in relation to abiogenesis comes from lightning strikes. Those chemicals can continue to combine in whatever way they did by utilizing energy and thusly increasing the overall entropy of the Universe. Now let's jump forward to plants and animals and evolution. Life forms do "work" by utilizing energy supplied from an outside source--the Sun. The Sun has nuclear reactions that release energy. The nuclear reaction process wastes energy, some of the released energy goes to the vacuum of space where it serves no purpose and that energy is wasted. The Sun is constantly increasing the entropy of the Universe. Only a small amount of the energy released by the Sun reaches Earth. Plants on Earth use this little amount of energy to grow, create sugars, create seeds, etc. Energy is wasted in this process too so the entropy of the Universe increases. Animals eat the plants and animals eat eachother and use that energy to do "work" like having offspring. Again, energy is wasted and the entropy of the Universe increases.

Creationists tend to use the entropy argument by applying it directly to life forms. This is a misapplication of the concept. Entropy applies directly only to isolated systems that have no free supply of energy, like the Universe. Open systems, such as life forms, are only affected by entropy indirectly. The free supply of energy in open systems allows them to locally counteract entropy. It is only when the free supply of energy begins to cease, and thusly they convert from open systems to isolated systems, that entropy takes it toll. Life, under ideal situations, could continue to survive and evolve until the supply of energy is cut off, like when the Universe does it's show-stopping "big freeze." There is no contradiction amongst abiogenesis, evolution, and thermodynamics. A contradiction only arises when the interpretation of entropy is wrong. The entropy-against-evolution argument is nothing more than a bunch of creationist baloney.

Energy alone is not sufficient to overcome entropy. Information is needed also i.e. the energy must be directed at the proper time, to the proper place , in the proper amounts.

Your example of plants confirms this. The DNA in plants has the regulating 'blueprint' instructing the plant how to use chlorophyll and other chemicals to conduct photosynthesis.

All living organisms (temporarily) are able to counteract entropy locally, not just with the use of energy, but with energy AND information. Energy alone won't do it.

Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals.

Entropy applies to all systems, not just non-existent, theoretical 'isolated' systems.

All living organisms (btw living organisms NEVER become 'isolated' systems. Where did you get that idea?) die and the organisms body decays, returning to dust. Is that only an 'indirect' application of entropy?

0 Replies

Your "other" chemicals in photosythesis:

"Photosynthesis is the process of converting light energy to chemical energy and storing it in the bonds of sugar. This process occurs in plants and some algae (Kingdom Protista). Plants need only light energy, CO2, and H2O to make sugar. The process of photosynthesis takes place in the chloroplasts, specifically using chlorophyll, the green pigment involved in photosynthesis."

-from SCLinks.

At least for me, this is one of your more coherent posts, RL. I realize that not one member here is a science writer which is why some of these forums go on, and on, and on. Actually reading about the science might help but some enjoy befuddling it in their own mind from bits and pieces of scientific information and then color it with a bizarre mixture of superstition and existentialism.

0 Replies

"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

0 Replies

Quote:

Are you saying that matter is never added to or lost from an asteroid? Think again.

When I referred to an asteroid it was never meant to be used as a "this is the way it is for all eternity" explanation. I think anybody who uses just 0.00001% of their brain cells would've realized that.

Quote:

Energy alone is not sufficient to overcome entropy. Information is needed also i.e. the energy must be directed at the proper time, to the proper place , in the proper amounts.

The Sun radiates "proper amounts" coincidentally because that is the nature of the beast. Many stars radiate more and many radiate less. It is pure coincidence that ours has a certain amount of nuclear reactions to emit the amount of energy it does. No deeper explanation is required. The "proper time" that the Sun radiates energy is all the time. No deeper explanation is required. The Sun also does not direct its energy. It emits energy in all directions. Saying that the Sun needs to "direct its energy" is much like saying a grenade needs to "direct its shrapnel." Overall the "information" argument is nothing short of a desperate plea for esoteric gibberish.

Quote:

Your example of plants confirms this. The DNA in plants has the regulating 'blueprint' instructing the plant how to use chlorophyll and other chemicals to conduct photosynthesis.

The "blueprint" is the result of evolution that was made possible by some event like that postulated in abiogenesis.

Quote:

Entropy applies to all systems, not just non-existent, theoretical 'isolated' systems.

The Universe itself is an isolated system and I fail to see how one would argue that the Universe doesn't exist. Entropy, as a never-broken law, only applies to isolated systems. The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value." The second law of thermodynamics does not specifically refer to open systems. It is possible for an open system to decrease its entropy locally by increasing the entropy of its surrounding environment. The only time the second law of thermodynamics is violated is when an object's entropy is decreased without also increasing the entropy of its surrounding environment. Never has such a violation been observed. Even Christians with PhDs in physics, like Doug Craigen, admit this.

Quote:

All living organisms (btw living organisms NEVER become 'isolated' systems. Where did you get that idea?) die and the organisms body decays, returning to dust. Is that only an 'indirect' application of entropy?

I never said "living organisms" become isolated systems. I said life itself would become an isolated system if the Universe stopped supplying it energy to continue being life.

0 Replies

megaman,

The entropy argument being promoted by real life comes from anti-evolution propaganda. There are many creationist websites that try to mislead the general public by arguing that entropy disproves evolutionary theory.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

megaman,

The entropy argument being promoted by real life comes from anti-evolution propaganda. There are many creationist websites that try to mislead the general public by arguing that entropy disproves evolutionary theory.

I know (see quote below). I have nothing better to do with my time than burst some "created bubbles" Razz

megamanXplosion wrote:

There is no contradiction amongst abiogenesis, evolution, and thermodynamics. A contradiction only arises when the interpretation of entropy is wrong. The entropy-against-evolution argument is nothing more than a bunch of creationist baloney.

0 Replies

Entropy and apathy are close synonyms as far as the Creationist/ID camp goes.

0 Replies

Chemicals wanted, dead or alive.

0 Replies

LW wrote-

Quote:

They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Oh yeah! Anybody who believes that is way dafter than any creationist.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Your enthusiastic prediction of 'what's gonna happen' is a long way from what has happened.

If scientists ever succeeded in producing a living organism from chemicals, it would prove that with intelligence and design it is possible. It wouldn't prove that it could happen by accident.

0 Replies

They're right next door to doing it -- I am still in close contact with those friends who were at Cal Tech and USC Medical Department from my college days. If you think it's daft, you're daft.

I did not state it was a "living organism," you did. It was organic and produced from a mixture of chemicals in existance in the primordial sea, and, of course, still in existance today. However, our seas have cooled over those millions of years. The "intelligent designer" is not some fairy king in the sky -- you believe you are clever with words but you're sorely lacking in communication skills. You couldn't convince a rabii he was Jewish.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

real life wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Your enthusiastic prediction of 'what's gonna happen' is a long way from what has happened.

If scientists ever succeeded in producing a living organism from chemicals, it would prove that with intelligence and design it is possible. It wouldn't prove that it could happen by accident.

They're right next door to doing it -- I am still in close contact with those friends who were at Cal Tech and USC Medical Department from my college days. If you think it's daft, you're daft.

I did not state it was a "living organism," you did. It was organic and produced from a mixture of chemicals in existance in the primordial sea, and, of course, still in existance today. However, our seas have cooled over those millions of years.

Hi Lightwiz,

The difference between 'a living organism' and 'a moving, breathing organism' is .... what exactly? The phrases are substantially the same, are they not?

And again remember, even if an effort to generate life in the lab succeeds (which is doubtful at best), that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals..............will not prove that life can happen by chance.

How could it possibly? It is the farthest thing from chance that one could imagine.

It might show that intelligence and design could do so however.

0 Replies

They are already producing human tissue and anyone doing enough reading, especially in medical journals would know about the progress. Mr. Bush, our infamous president who values life unless he's taking over another country, doesn't want anyone knowing or, as he would likely say if he could pronounce it, meddling in such things because he was scared out of his pants by "Frankenstein" when he was still infantile (about 20 years old, I would guess).

You think chance is something that is like a dice game and that you won't win at the craps table unless someone has divined your dice.

The Universe is designed by natural causes and you have not one lick of proof that some superhuman being has anything to do with it. Good luck with your fantasy and superstition. I'm at work on a time machine big enough to carry you and the others on these forums who still believe in these antiquated suppositions of a great godfather in the sky to send you all back to the Dark Ages.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:
real life wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Your enthusiastic prediction of 'what's gonna happen' is a long way from what has happened.

If scientists ever succeeded in producing a living organism from chemicals, it would prove that with intelligence and design it is possible. It wouldn't prove that it could happen by accident.

They're right next door to doing it -- I am still in close contact with those friends who were at Cal Tech and USC Medical Department from my college days. If you think it's daft, you're daft.

I did not state it was a "living organism," you did. It was organic and produced from a mixture of chemicals in existance in the primordial sea, and, of course, still in existance today. However, our seas have cooled over those millions of years.

Hi Lightwiz,

The difference between 'a living organism' and 'a moving, breathing organism' is .... what exactly? The phrases are substantially the same, are they not?

And again remember, even if an effort to generate life in the lab succeeds (which is doubtful at best), that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals..............will not prove that life can happen by chance.

How could it possibly? It is the farthest thing from chance that one could imagine.

It might show that intelligence and design could do so however.

Energy striking down on an ocean by lightning happens all the time. That is why it is wise to get your butt out of a swimming pool when it begins to rain. Feel free to ask an Alaskan Crab fisherman or anybody else in a similar ocean industry if lightning is rare or very common. Furthermore, The chemicals are carefully selected in the experiment but it is not because they think "well, this one may work." They tend to use specific combinations of chemicals that would be expected by the various proposed models. Some of the models are chemicals inside comets and meteorites may have started life when it crashed to Earth, chemicals produced by black smokers at the bottom of the sea floor, chemicals in clay substrates, etc. The choice of chemicals and the amount is not completely arbitrary like you suggest. Have you yet tired of misrepresenting science?

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

real life wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
real life wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Your enthusiastic prediction of 'what's gonna happen' is a long way from what has happened.

If scientists ever succeeded in producing a living organism from chemicals, it would prove that with intelligence and design it is possible. It wouldn't prove that it could happen by accident.

They're right next door to doing it -- I am still in close contact with those friends who were at Cal Tech and USC Medical Department from my college days. If you think it's daft, you're daft.

I did not state it was a "living organism," you did. It was organic and produced from a mixture of chemicals in existance in the primordial sea, and, of course, still in existance today. However, our seas have cooled over those millions of years.

Hi Lightwiz,

The difference between 'a living organism' and 'a moving, breathing organism' is .... what exactly? The phrases are substantially the same, are they not?

And again remember, even if an effort to generate life in the lab succeeds (which is doubtful at best), that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals..............will not prove that life can happen by chance.

How could it possibly? It is the farthest thing from chance that one could imagine.

It might show that intelligence and design could do so however.

They are already producing human tissue and anyone doing enough reading, especially in medical journals would know about the progress......

Now you're playing with smoke and mirrors, my friend.

Scientists are not producing human tissue in experiments simulating primordial conditions with simulated lightning strikes.

Don't try the bait and switch here, Lightwiz. You're mixing two different stories, hoping we won't know the difference.

Lightwizard wrote:

The Universe is designed by natural causes....

Now THAT'S funny. Evolution (what you believe in) has no goal, 'designs' nothing.

--------------------------------------

While you're reading the med journals, you might learn a little bit about how many different substances are actually present in human tissue.

Or make it easy, how many different substances are present in the very simplest life form.

Then calculate the impossible odds of all of those compounds generating themselves at just the right time (if they are present for very long in the primordial soup which supposedly produced them, they would actually be chemically destroyed by it).....

.......and then all simultaneously joining together (you aren't postulating that a half organism existed for any period of time, are you? One that could eat but not eliminate? One that could survive but not reproduce itself? ) in complex and interdependent chemical reactions that are required to make a living organism --- and keep it alive --- the processes of feeding, elimination of waste, repair and maintenance of the organism, reproduction, defense against chemical destruction etc.

Remember, it must be successful in all of these IMMEDIATELY, or death wins and we start over.

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

real life wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
real life wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Your enthusiastic prediction of 'what's gonna happen' is a long way from what has happened.

If scientists ever succeeded in producing a living organism from chemicals, it would prove that with intelligence and design it is possible. It wouldn't prove that it could happen by accident.

They're right next door to doing it -- I am still in close contact with those friends who were at Cal Tech and USC Medical Department from my college days. If you think it's daft, you're daft.

I did not state it was a "living organism," you did. It was organic and produced from a mixture of chemicals in existance in the primordial sea, and, of course, still in existance today. However, our seas have cooled over those millions of years.

Hi Lightwiz,

The difference between 'a living organism' and 'a moving, breathing organism' is .... what exactly? The phrases are substantially the same, are they not?

And again remember, even if an effort to generate life in the lab succeeds (which is doubtful at best), that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals..............will not prove that life can happen by chance.

How could it possibly? It is the farthest thing from chance that one could imagine.

It might show that intelligence and design could do so however.

Energy striking down on an ocean by lightning happens all the time. That is why it is wise to get your butt out of a swimming pool when it begins to rain. Feel free to ask an Alaskan Crab fisherman or anybody else in a similar ocean industry if lightning is rare or very common. Furthermore, The chemicals are carefully selected in the experiment but it is not because they think "well, this one may work." They tend to use specific combinations of chemicals that would be expected by the various proposed models. Some of the models are chemicals inside comets and meteorites may have started life when it crashed to Earth, chemicals produced by black smokers at the bottom of the sea floor, chemicals in clay substrates, etc. The choice of chemicals and the amount is not completely arbitrary like you suggest. Have you yet tired of misrepresenting science?

On the contrary, I did not state that the choice of chemicals was abitrary.

I said that they were carefully chosen because they had the best chance of making the experiment 'work' i.e. succeed in producing the product desired.

And indeed this is the case.

Imagine spending millions of dollars on executing an experiment , all the while KNOWING you do NOT have the requisite chemicals to produce the result you are trying to obtain.

(You may do this as part of a 'control' for the other group which you are betting the farm on, but you better believe the 'right stuff' will be in the experiment, or it won't be done.)

I contrasted this with what would happen in a natural setting (the one that supposedly really produced the first living organisms). Chemicals there would NOT be in precise measured quantities, optimized for success.

Get it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Scientists are not producing human tissue in experiments simulating primordial conditions with simulated lightning strikes.

He never claimed that. This is a blatant misrepresentation of his claims.

real life wrote:

Don't try the bait and switch here, Lightwiz. You're mixing two different stories, hoping we won't know the difference.

You are the one mixing stories (see above) and hoping people won't notice the difference.

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:
The Universe is designed by natural causes....

Now THAT'S funny. Evolution (what you believe in) has no goal, 'designs' nothing.

Since when has evolution ever been touted as having created the Universe?

real life wrote:

On the contrary, I did not state that the choice of chemicals was abitrary.

I said that they were carefully chosen because they had the best chance of making the experiment 'work' i.e. succeed in producing the product desired.

You stated earlier "that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals... will not prove that life can happen by chance" but why do you say this? If the way the chemicals and the amount of chemicals is chosen to mimic that produced by chance in the environment and they then combine then how would it not lend credence to the idea those chemicals combined by chance? How does it lend credence to the idea those chemicals combined by intelligent action when the environment is supposed to mimic the "chance environment" things are thought to have happened in? That is much like saying a person that drops in apple like it were dropping from a tree by chance is not evidence that apples drop from trees by chance but the experiment was closer to demonstrating "intelligent falling." It seems that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Are the environments that are setup by those "PhDs" mimicking a "chance environment" or not?

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

You stated earlier "that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals... will not prove that life can happen by chance" but why do you say this?

I'm reminded of the NBC Dateline segment many years ago.

The 'investigative' reporters were trying to 'ascertain the facts' concerning a certain model of GM pickup which was alleged to lend itself to horrendous fires when impacted in an accident.

The design and placement of the gas tank were among the 'flaws' discussed.

To prove the point, with the cameras rolling, NBC crashed one of the pickups and WHOOSH a fireball engulfed the truck, making a dramatic point and verifying the allegations.

A few days later NBC admitted they had placed explosives in the tank to discharge on cue so that the camera would capture a pleasing image confirming this 'scientific' investigation.

---------------------

The point is no doubt lost upon you, but I still enjoy telling the story.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:

You stated earlier "that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals... will not prove that life can happen by chance" but why do you say this?

I'm reminded of the NBC Dateline segment many years ago.

The 'investigative' reporters were trying to 'ascertain the facts' concerning a certain model of GM pickup which was alleged to lend itself to horrendous fires when impacted in an accident.

The design and placement of the gas tank were among the 'flaws' discussed.

To prove the point, with the cameras rolling, NBC crashed one of the pickups and WHOOSH a fireball engulfed the truck, making a dramatic point and verifying the allegations.

A few days later NBC admitted they had placed explosives in the tank to discharge on cue so that the camera would capture a pleasing image confirming this 'scientific' investigation.

---------------------

The point is no doubt lost upon you, but I still enjoy telling the story.

So you are claiming that the scientists are trying to create life forms by using chemicals that wouldn't be in the proposed "chance environments"?

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

real life wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:

You stated earlier "that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals... will not prove that life can happen by chance" but why do you say this?

I'm reminded of the NBC Dateline segment many years ago.

The 'investigative' reporters were trying to 'ascertain the facts' concerning a certain model of GM pickup which was alleged to lend itself to horrendous fires when impacted in an accident.

The design and placement of the gas tank were among the 'flaws' discussed.

To prove the point, with the cameras rolling, NBC crashed one of the pickups and WHOOSH a fireball engulfed the truck, making a dramatic point and verifying the allegations.

A few days later NBC admitted they had placed explosives in the tank to discharge on cue so that the camera would capture a pleasing image confirming this 'scientific' investigation.

---------------------

The point is no doubt lost upon you, but I still enjoy telling the story.

So you are claiming that the scientists are trying to create life forms by using chemicals that wouldn't be in the proposed "chance environments"?

No, that is not what I said.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics