[ZGuy]

The arguement here is that proteins could not have formed by random chance.

Your position that proteins have formed under the "right conditions" (requires the input of intelligence) from a "proper soup" (requires the input of intelligence) under "primitive earth conditions" (as created by the experimenter) do not support your hypothesis that this could occur by truly random chance.

Also the reasons why the experiment you site still cannot explain the origin of life (the reducing atmosphere problem, etc.) are clearly expounded upon in the original article.

As an aside, I always find it interesting that those who do not support the intelligent design position pepper their arguements with name calling instead of arguing strictly from the evidence. You might want to modify your approach since this is a tactic aligning you with democrats and liberals! ;^)

[balrog666]

Also the reasons why the experiment you site still cannot explain the origin of life (the reducing atmosphere problem, etc.) are clearly expounded upon in the original article.

Once again allow me to note that we do not know everything there is to know about the universe, the manner or conditions in which proteins may be constructed, or the spectrum of environmental conditions prevalent upon the earth some 4 billion years ago (or even today). Now, given that, to conclude that the explanation for protein chains, life, and the entire universe MUST be your pet theory is completely absurb, especially when you espouse a theory which by it's very nature cannot be proven.

[jennyp]

Your position that proteins have formed under the "right conditions" (requires the input of intelligence) from a "proper soup" (requires the input of intelligence) under "primitive earth conditions" (as created by the experimenter) do not support your hypothesis that this could occur by truly random chance.

Ah, so let me get this straight: Evolutionists claim that something happened naturally, and offer an experiment as proof. You say that the fact that the experiment was designed means that the phenomenon under test must have been designed.

What's the general principle here? What's the "take-home lesson"? It is this: All experiments are designed, therefore everything that has ever been learned about nature thru any kind of experiment must have been designed.

This, of course, is absurd. Your argument would drive a stake thru the heart of all science. Therefore your objection is absurd.

[jennyp]

Oops, correction:

Evolutionists claim that something could have happened naturally, and offer an experiment as proof.