E SIMPLEST SINGLE CELL LIFEFORM has 100 million atoms. all arranged to
heal itself, feed, reproduce, ect. mabe you should make one in your lab.
should be easy if it can happen by accident. waiting.....
once we recognise the immense complexity of even simple life forms,
it becomes a lot easier to question evolution.

Voileazur, Thanks for your sincerely and intelligently written email!

Rambill, I share many of your criticism of how some people do accept
scientific beliefs on faith. However, it seems to me that you believe
that silence is evidence that 'the other side' is incapable of arguing
against your statements. If you are being serious and honest, you will
consider the possibility that people are not responding for other
reasons.

It looks to me like you ignore valid questions raised by some people,
dismiss some peoples best effort to have a real conversation with you as
simply “the party line”, you talk about references without providing
them, and you seem to favor banter over following up on previous parts
of the discussion. I am not saying this to criticize you – or your
beliefs, I’m just saying there are reasons some people may stop taking
you seriously, and simply start to ignore you.

Regarding your most recent post about the simplest cell, I personally
don’t 'believe' any explanation I’ve seen for the origin of the first
cell (which presumable is far simpler than even the simplest of today’s
single cell organisms).

So lets you and I *suppose* that the theory of evolution is inadequate
to explain the origin of the first cell, that simply leaves a mystery.
It doesn’t have any negative impact whatsoever on the validity of the
theory of evolution applied in other domains.

I agree with Massage. I put forth a theory in an earlier post and it
was totally ignored. Let me try it again.

For the sake of arguement let's believe in God for a moment. Let's say
that God created this universe and made it capable of creating and
sustaining life. Let's say that this creator knew this would happen.
For this reason a set of rules that would govern the way the universe
worked was created, let's call these rules "nature". God endowed and
entrusted nature with the task of overseeing his creations' development.
Now the earth and the universe are changing things, so nature sensing
these changes makes adjustments within the creatures/creations that God
made ensuring their continuence.
Man, upon discovering this, calls these changes evelution.

When thinking about this, remember what God is, remember that, according
to the Bible, we can never truely understand or ever comprehend what God
is, nor can we ever know the will of God, for even prayer asks, "thy
will be done" for we can not know the when or why of that will. To say
otherwise would be only guessing, however, what's wrong with acccepting
"nature", the very nature that God has put into place? What would be so
wrong with saying that God created man and all the creatures of the
earth from and endowed nature with it's keeping. For would that not
make nature consistant with God and would God then be nature? Thomas
wrote what Jesus tought him about God: look under every stone and there
you will find me. Is not nature in every corner, under every stone?

..... a perfect argument for creationism there.... my read is that
pepole less inclined to believe the word creationism becaus by
extension in means a creator.then of course if we believe in a creator,
we must accept his laws and abandon our own lusts and desires.

raise your hand if you want me to tupe 2 pages of refrences. im bored.
noiws your chance.

i do i do

Go ahead Ram, I'm up late at night, can't sleep. I look for some good
reading.

From Red: >> God endowed and entrusted nature with the task of
overseeing his creations' development. Now the earth and the universe
are changing things, so nature sensing these changes makes adjustments
within the creatures/creations that God
made ensuring their continuence. Man, upon discovering this, calls these
changes evelution.

Occasionally I meet evolutionists who say this is a 'wrong' way of
looking at things, but who are they to say? It seems to me that the
theory of evolution may be right (or wrong) independentally of whether
there is a 'creator of the universe', and regardless of that creator's
grand design/intention. Like Fitnessfanatic pointed out, evolution
attempts to explain 'how', not 'why', and this is an interesting idea
for the 'why'.

>> my read is that pepole less inclined to believe the word creationism becaus by extension in means a creator.then of course if we believe in a creator, we must accept his laws and abandon our own lusts and desires.

rambill, you are right that this is true for some people. I hope you
don't think that everyone who believes in evolution is simply afraid to
admit there might be a God - many of the people who give believe in the
theory of evolution also *believe* in God, and even accept Jesus as
their savior, accept the bible as the Word of God, ...

and so much for LUCY in the Sky with Diamonds. Peace

Evolutionists don't exist!!!

Creationists do, by virtue of their own decalration!
'Creationists' for the purpose of this comment, should only refer to the
'hardcore', mission-driven minority, whom are on a crusade to deny
anything and everything which doesn't agree with their beliefs.
As opposed to people whom consider that Man and the universe are God's
creation, rather than the result of evolution: as theoretically claimed
by Darwin, and refer to themselves as sympathisers to the creationist
side of the equation.

The 'Creationist' (hard core and marginal only) 'MISSION' is to engage
in some ill founded and misguided battle to attack something they
consider to be a threat: Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Since 'Creationists' are not stupid people, they know they can't fight
with the dead. Yes Darwin is dead!
So they must invent a target; ...an ennemy for their Mission to take
shape.

And so was born the virtual EVOLUTIONIST. A bit like Don Quichotte
confusing Wind Mills for his living ennemies, or a bit like
Frankenstein, 'evolutionists' are the pure virtual 'creation', ... of
creationists!!!

As I think massagetrade already pointed out, there is no contest between
the two domains. One can perfectly ARGUE FOR Darwin's scientific
THEORY...

(argue, not believe, science is not based on belief: people are, ...
and the thing is a theory, not a law and much less a piece of DOGMA to
be believed in!!!)

... And while one ARGUES FOR Darwin's THEORY of evolution, that same
person can BELIEVE in God as the creator of Man and the Universe.
Hundreds of millions do!!!

Creationists (hardcore ones) whom fight to travestite God's creation as
a mere scientific 'project' requiring proof, are a disgrace to their
Faith and to religion as whole.
To the same extent, those whom mistakenly 'believe' in the theory of
evolution, are a disgrace to science, and all those whom invest in
rigour, fact, and scientific proof. Proof is not something you need to
believe in. And you'll never be reuired to provide proof for your faith.
PERIOD.

Yes people have the freedom to discuss just about anything, and in just
about any contexts. Contexts of confusion, lack of rigour,
righteousness, single thought, etc. they're all possible.

But rigour, openmindedness, reality-check-mode, reasonable acceptance of
some points and equally reasonable defence of opposing views are also
possible contexts for discussions.

And in that spirit, I propose an alternative premise for this forum:

"... By trying to impose God's Creation as a 'science-based' notion, and
opposing it agaisnt Darwin's theory of evolution, aren't Creationists
doing more harm than good to the credibility of the 'faith-based' cause
of '... God as the creator of heaven and earth'? "

Very great statements Voil. As I have said before, They both go
hand in hand, logically. I don't mean exactally, but they do. I say this
because, even Darwin himself said, according to the translation that
people have of his theroies, said "that is not what I meant" about the
evolution that we understand. I am a scientist. I believe in evolution
(not what people think as Darwins theroy), but I also believe in
creationism. I personally looked for years all over for proof that God
exists. I've never found it untill recently. Now I can prove it
scientificlly. I welcome any questions. I don't want to rambil on. (no
pun intended rambill.)LOL

i still dont see any arguments that disprove or even cast doubt about
creationism. WHERE ARE THEY?

-COSMOS BY Carl sagan pg 328
- ibid pg 231
-the origon of the species darwin mentor edition1958 pg 450
-discover "the tortise or the hare" october 1980 pg 58
-the neck of the girraffe by francis hutching 1982, pg 12
Th enterprise, riverside calif., debate since darwin , by boyce
rensberger nov 14, 1980pg e9
- science"evolutionary theory under fire, by roger lewin, nov21, 1980pgs
883-897
-natural housekeeping, "evolutionary housecleaning" by niles eldridgefeb
1982 pgs 78-81
-the star jiohannesberg,
the evolution of a theory" by christopher booker apr 20, 1982 pg 19
-the neck of the girraffe-pg 7-8
-new scientist-'darwins theoryan excercise in science"michael ruse june
25, 1981 pg 828
- the enchanted loom, mind in the universe robert jastrow 1981 pg 19
-the origon of the species, darwin, 1902 edition part one, pg 250
- the enchanted loom, pg 96
- ibid pg 98-100
-field museum of natural history bulletin, chicago. conflicts between
darwin and palentology by david raup, jan 1979 pg 22-25
-the new evolutinary timetable, steven stanley 1981 pgs 71-77
-the enterprise non. 1980 pg e9
-science digest 'MIRacle mutations john gildeman1982 pg 92
-the world book encyclopedia 1982 vol 6 pg335
-the new yourk times theory of rapid evolution attacked baynard webster
july 9 1981 page b11
-Harpers, "darwins mistake" tom bethallfeb 1976 pg 72-75
-theneck of the giraffe pgs103-117
-The guardian, london "begining to have doubts by john durant december 4
1980 pg 15
-the origion of species, intro by wr thompson1956 editionpg xxii
-the new york times " computer scientists stymied in thier quest to
match human vision william broad sept.25 1984, pg c1
-field museum of natural history bulletin jan. 1979 pg 25
-old testament word studies william wilson 1978 pg 109-
-putmans geology, edwin e larson and peter birkeland 1982 pg66
- the illustrated bible dictionary tyndale, 1980 part 1, pg 335
- aid to bible understanding, watchtower, 1971 pg 393
-the lamp, the worlds of wallace pratt, by wlcopithorne, 1971 pg 14

just getting warmed up.

voil... have you ever applied the scientific method to creationism?

I have.

...did you find anything that indicated that creationisn is a myth?
without validity?

Voil absolutely wonderful. You seem to have put into words shades of
both sides of the fence without much offence and with some degree of
logic, much better than I was able to accomplish.

Personally, I think the theory of evolution is still just that, a
theory, it is being shaped and adjusted and even proven wrong at points.
But theory is a starting point and I for one see a path in it.

Ram, thanks for all the info. I plan to review it as I have time.
As for the Scientific method of crationists - in order to apply it you
must concede that the bible is correct and infallible to start with.
There is no flexibility there, it's laughable to think that any good
science could begin or follow a logical testable path given a set of
unbendable rules that don't even have a basis in all that we believe is
logican. Wher is the math????

Red is right, but you are right to Bill. Really you have to be a
christian first to apply this. I was a christian once. That is why I dug
into this. It is hard for people to see this with out having some kind
of 'regilious root'. That's why I picked up a science book. As I have
said before, I believe that science proves creationism.