[js1138]

An honest assessment of evolutionism readily reveals that scientific method doesn't work and that all experiments in the field ultimately show little more than they were accomplished by intelligent design.

I can see why you believe that chance always begins at ground zero. It is the way you think. The questions I have raised regarding the ratchet mechanism of variation and selection have been ignored and sidestepped, but not discussed.

I would love, for example, to see someone try to prove, using probability theory, how an electron can't move from a lower energy state to a higher energy state without an energy input and without passing through intermediate states.

There's a lot of really cool properties of "mere matter", and a lot of counterintuitive stuff lurking in materialism. This ain't your granddaddy's universe.

[gore3000]

I can see why you believe that chance always begins at ground zero. It is the way you think. The questions I have raised regarding the ratchet mechanism of variation and selection have been ignored and sidestepped, but not discussed.

Well, I am doing so now and discuss it in a couple of posts. Basically there is no Junk DNA which is what you are hanging your hat on. All DNA has a purpose. That is why mutations hurt the organism - they make a necessary part of it unusable. This is contrary to survival of the fittest and all that. Read the article one or two posts above this one and come back to me.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I can see why you believe that chance always begins at ground zero. It is the way you think. The questions I have raised regarding the ratchet mechanism of variation and selection have been ignored and sidestepped, but not discussed.

Chance has to have a reference point and we generally refer to this as a starting point.

Ratchet mechanisms do no good outside of context.  While evolutionists can make a case for changes in organisms (IDers can do the same), they have extreme difficulty in explaining how the organism originally came about when such ratchet mechanisms would not have been in place because there was no context to work with.  Even pro-evolutionists have admitted that all experiments to date involving pre-biotic matter have made rather dubious assumptions to begin with.

All arguments that I've seen against Mike Behe's "mousetrap" thus far have done more to reinforce the ID position than militate against it (one argument showcased a spider which used a certain moth's pheromones against it.  The odds of species of two different orders developing the same pheromone independently is rather mind-boggling to say the least).

I'm not saying evolution can't happen, I'm just concerned that evolutionary religionists dismiss, out of hand, those who don't follow the written orthodoxy.