The problem is that this doesn't happen by accident. It involves learning and application of that knowledge by intelligent beings.
The problem with the "exploding steel mill" analogy is that we've never observed a steel mill explosion forming machined parts. We have seen complex molecules, including amino acids and nucleotide bases, form as the result of simpler compounds bashing together in a mixture.
We've also never observed a "big bang" forming planets, stars, or galaxies. Some folks just assume it happened. We've never seen a steel mill explosion forming machined parts because the laws of entropy would prevent it. Why can we then assume that an explosion of dirt would form biological machinery far more intricate and complicated than any machine we could build. Logic seems to have eluded the evolutionists.
Also, the only time we have seen aa's and nucleotides form from simpler molecules is when we (as intelligent beings) have manipulated the environment and introduced catalysts that we're not sure even existed.
Let's for the sake of argument assume that is was possible for nucleotides AND amino acids to form in earth's "primordial" environment. The problem you encounter then is that the nucleotides have to form an RNA molecule (at least that's the current theory, until it changes again with the wind) which is unstable unless coated with protein. Where's the protein? It hasn't been made yet. The RNA would have to quickly catalyze a reaction that put enough aa's together to form a protective coating before it denatured.
Too many things would have to happen simultaneously for this to occur. There are too many highly unlikely obstacles for this theory to overcome. Evolutionists seem to think that the ultimate catalyst is time, that given enough time even the most unlikely events could occur.
Why not identical? Why the millions of slight differences, arranged in a way that's beautifully explained by assuming millions of years of descent with slight modifications?
Because organisms need to live in a variety of habitats and environments. For a given function (GTP cleaving), it may be that each different arrangement gives the protein optimum function in different environments (pH differences, temperature differences, etc.). God also knew that the earth would change and that animals would need to adapt, so he made that possible by introducing as much variation as we see today.
By what mechanism did God take these bits and pieces and put them together? We've seen factories. We've watched them work. We've watched them being built and re-tooled. The only mechanism we've EVER seen putting simple organic molecules together into proteins and amino acids is the blind combining and re-combining in accord with the laws of physics and chemistry.
Factories are beside the point (except that they support my theory because it is intelligent life that runs and operates these things). The only reason we see these molecules forming from "blind" recombination is because we, as intelligent beings, put just the right chemicals, the right amounts of these chemicals, and the right catalysts into this mixture. We don't know what type of mixture existed in the past. Some assume that the mixture we used is the one that existed ONLY BECAUSE it is the mixture that worked. It proves nothing.
If you choose to believe that these laws were designed by a Designer who expected intelligent life as the inevitable result, be my guest. But this does not rule out naturalistic evolution.
No it doesn't. I never said it did. I'm just providing examples of how it *might not be* naturalistic evolution for the benefit of those who are so sold out to the idea of naturalistic evolution that their logic seems to have stopped functioning.
This argument would have a lot more weight if a Honda Civic and a Honda Accord DID have the same designer.
They did... HONDA.
In addition, I can pretty much guarantee that the Honda Civic and the Toyota Tercel had different designers. Do we assume a different God for each "kind" (whatever one of those is)?
All cars have the same designer: man. Intelligent beings. Some people do believe that there is a different god for each kind. I choose to believe that ONE God did all of this because He has written a book about it and I know beyond all doubt in my own heart that He is very much alive today. He has done some things in my life and in the lives of my friends that I can't even fathom. If you had the same experiences, you would know it too.
As far as the definition of a "kind" (when referring to organisms), a 3 year old could tell you that a dog is different from a cat is different from a horse. If you put a picture of a coyote, a bobcat, and a mule side by side, a child could tell you that they are different kinds. A child would also know that a coyote, a wolf, and a dingo are all the same kind.
If all life hadn't evolved from a single common ancestor, it would't function the way it does. Living things wouldn't have the similarities and the slight differences we see if they hadn't undergone eons of descent with modification.
What makes this statement any more valid than mine? We reach two different conclusions from the same evidence. Both are equally valid. Is it just because your view is more widely accepted? The earth was once thought to be flat, and those who said it was round were laughed at.
I'm not trying to disprove naturalistic evolution; I don't think either theory will ever by proven or disproven. I'm just trying to get the robots to recognize that there might be another option they should consider. We all know what happens when people ASS-U-ME things...
And we have the ability to break down amino acids into their component parts, and use these parts to build others as needed. All that's required in a human diet is eight "essential" amino acids. Cats require at least one extra -- taurine. Why didn't the designer simply set up all life to use the same basic "kit" of amino acids?
And we can break down cars (that were designed and created by intelligent life) into their component parts and put them back together to form different machines.
If God had made all creatures so that they would use the same "kit" of aa's, then the intricate food web we see would not exist. Nature would not function the way it does. Nature functions so well because organisms are able to find niches, and many niches are available based solely on the nutritional requirements of the organisms.
God is far more intelligent than you give Him credit for. When He is at His dumbest, He is still smarter than you and I.
Your privilege. Again, real scientists doing real work in the field don't care what you can or cannot reconcile.
So molecular biology is not a real science? I don't study evolutionary biology, but I am studying molecular biology, and I do work in the field. I don't have my Post-hole Digger (Ph.D.) yet, but I'm working on it.
You've made this point before and you'll need to explain it a little more. We see a lot of variation today. (And think of all the extinct variation represented in the fossil record!) Taking Adam as an example, I ask you, once again, if all the variation we see in humans today is collected in this one individual, what type of creature you imagine Adam was?