[NonLinear]

Darwinian evolution is not about this. He never once mentioned the scenario you describe. Your ignorance is not proof that you are right.

You do not seem to understand that this is what kids are being taught in school. Not graduate school, not college, but in middle school. That's why the ID folks are crying foul, and want equal time. You are so caught up in defending evolution that you don't see where the actual issue is.


Think of the arrogance if I, based on zero credit hours of Physics, decided string theory was wrong and the subatomic particles are really little elves. That's you announcing the last 150 years of science are wrong. Breathtaking, mind-numbing, laughable.

I was not announcing that the last 150 years of science are wrong. Actually, I was pointing out that a link that was posted as a "proof" is not. It is good information, but you require a higher standard of the ID people than that to which you hold yourself.


No. You just don't know what the heck you are talking about.

Nope. I never said I did.

[VadeRetro]

You do not seem to understand that this is what kids are being taught in school. Not graduate school, not college, but in middle school.

The Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s, a century after Darwin, showed that early-Earth conditions were condusive to the formation of aminos and other organics from simpler compounds. This is the beginnings of abiogenesis research. This is not evolution.

You are beating other people over the head with how little you know of what you are talking about. You haven't taken the trouble to educate yourself enough to even screech intelligently about the things at which you screech. Your opinions on the subject are worthless.

Don't just wail back how I'm attacking you again. I'm being nice here. There are nastier ways to put this. It is a waste of time to answer posts such as yours without pointing out that everything you're saying is just flat wrong and you need to educate yourself on what you're babbling about. Believe it or not, scientists train for years before taking up positions on the cutting edge of research. It isn't even so much you haven't done enough study to detect any flaws in their work and offer suggetions. You haven't done enough reading to make sense.

Let me once again deal with your railings at scientific "faith." One of science's most basic assumptions is that there are reasonable inferences available from hard data. This is not a faith, or, if it is, it is the most demonstrably useful faith there has ever been. You wish to compare science's use of inference to your own superstitious babbling. It isn't the same. The former works. The latter doesn't.