Nice assertion - are you a mathematician, or are you engaging in wishful thinking? A protein is so staggering ly complex that what you say is impossible. It takes tremendous FAITH to believe what you believe with absolutely zero scientific evidence. It seems empirical evidence is only applied by darwinists when it is convenient.
You can't get life from non-life - and you can't get personality from non-personality.
The theory of evolution is accepted by biologists all over the world, not just in the US. The theory of evolution holds so much weight because it is accepted by the vast majority of biologists. This came to be because the theory has so much predictive and explainatory power that it became the prefered model for explaining the diversity of life on earth.
So, the biologists who agree are the ones who are right and the ones who don't agree are the ones who are wrong? That's a good method - it's called BIAS. You mean it leaves so much room for the imagination ... evolution cannot explain the beginning of life - natural selection/mutation can only act on life that already exists. You are stepping outside the bounds of evolutionary theory.
It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
Yes, we all know it has the power of the US Govt behind it! Yes, we all know that atheism is the de facto state religion of the United States ( a violation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution). We all know that the high priests of your religion will not allow any OPEN DISCUSSION. Any theory that does not allow itself to be tested and retested and questioned is not science - it's a religion! - and you have the best of both worlds since your religion is FORCED upon everyone who attends a public school.
" You can't get life from non-life - and you can't get personality from non-personality."
<< biting tongue.
The flaw was in the premise. The premise was that amino acids randomly falling into place to form a specific protein is how abiogenesis must work. It is not.
So, the biologists who agree are the ones who are right and the ones who don't agree are the ones who are wrong? That's a good method - it's called BIAS.
No it is not bias, and by the way bias is not a good method. One indicator of bias is when someone ignores the consensus of experts in a field when they are not an expert themselves.
You mean it leaves so much room for the imagination ... evolution cannot explain the beginning of life
Just as gravity cannot explain the beginning of matter, and germ theory cannot explain the beginning of germs. It is quite normal in science to have theories that explain how something changes or works without explaining how they originated. The two are generally seperate questions for seperate theories. I cannot actually think of one scientific theory that explains both how something works and how it originated.
natural selection/mutation can only act on life that already exists. You are stepping outside the bounds of evolutionary theory.
I can talk about two things at once.
Yes, we all know it has the power of the US Govt behind it! Yes, we all know that atheism is the de facto state religion of the United States ( a violation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution).
Right time for an analogy. Meterology. Lets imagine some people's religion said that God creates the weather. Well wouldn't they be just mad to find out that an atheistic theory like meteorology was taught in schools? Meteorology is an explaination for the weather using only natural and materialistic causes with no mention of God.
We all know that the high priests of your religion will not allow any OPEN DISCUSSION.
And the anti-meteorologists would be saying the same thing. "How come Meterology isn't allowed to be critised in schools?" they would demand. "Why are the high priests of meteorology not allowing open discussion? Is it because they are scared?"
Any theory that does not allow itself to be tested and retested and questioned is not science
"Meteorology is a religion because they won't allow it to be tested, retested and questioned in schools". Well of course both meteorology and evolution are tested, retested and questioned, but this happens within the scientific community, not in schools.
and you have the best of both worlds since your religion is FORCED upon everyone who attends a public school.
We should stop teaching the religion of meteorology straight away then. BTW I find it interesting how you are using the word religion as some kind of slur.
Then we have people who believe spirits cause disease, not germs. "It's not fair to teach atheistic germ theory to our children in public school!", they cry, "either teach spirit theory alongside germ theory, or teach neither".
Well once you allow post-modernism and "all ideas are equal" that's science education dead. Not all ideas are equal, and the people who determine which ideas are the best are the experts in that field, for obvious reasons. That's the way it currently is, and there is no reason whatsoever to change it.