"The evolution is a process that started with the first aminoacids and won't end"
And as I pointed out, abio-genesis is impossible. Where did these amino acids come from? When did they become living? We can't reproduce it in any "naturalistic" environment.
IF we ever create life, it's going to envolve ALOT of engineering, which would still support my claim to ID.
It is less for me to prove ID, more for you to prove a random event can cause life.
Evolution happens. On what scale we can debate all day. My purpose on this thread is to advocate ID, which you cannot hope to counter with anything scientific, because science doesn't disagree with it! ScienTISTS may, but they are human and subject to folly.
We can't reproduce it... yet. You just don't have faith in mankind's creativity and ingenuity, don't you?
Just repeating it and stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue doesn't make it so, son.
Where did these amino acids come from?
Amino acids form naturally.
When did they become living?
About 3.5 billion years ago, around sub-sea thermal vents.
We can't reproduce it in any "naturalistic" environment.
We don't have the time or resources to make our own mountains via plate tectonics either, but given the overwhelming evidence, only an idiot would deny that that's how mountains are formed.
Ditto for abiogenesis. The evidence points clearly to a specific time, place, and manner for the "bootstrapping" of life from metal-ion autocatalytic reactions.
IF we ever create life, it's going to envolve ALOT of engineering, which would still support my claim to ID.
Heads you win, tails you win, eh? Then something's obviously wrong with your hypothesis, if no experimental outcome could possibly falsify it, and all outcomes "prove" it...
It is less for me to prove ID, more for you to prove a random event can cause life.
You guys *really* need to get off the "random" fixation. There is *far* more to biochemistry than the sort of "winning the lottery" randomness that you guys can't seem to get beyond.
Evolution happens. On what scale we can debate all day.
You can, anyway -- those who are familiar with the evidence *know* its scope and scale and history.
My purpose on this thread is to advocate ID, which you cannot hope to counter with anything scientific, because science doesn't disagree with it!
Say what?
ScienTISTS may, but they are human and subject to folly.
That cuts both ways, kid. But *we're* the ones who have spent over a hundred years submitting *our* position to literally millions of different kinds of reality checks against the real-world evidence, and it has passed the challenges. Yours has yet to progress beyond, "it sure does look complicated to me, I can't imagine how it could be anything other than designed..."
I guess it is if you ignore aspect of what made the designer...