If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.
Other reader comments on this article
Comment
By
Date
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble...
James Collins
Jun 1, 2007 11:01
At the end I would change "opposition to conservative Christian beliefs"
to "opposition to religious beliefs".
Christians do not have a monopoly... [MORE]
D Hollander
May 27, 2007 21:49
They believe, to generalize broadly, that evolution is just one of the ways that a deity or deities works in... [MORE]
MPW
May 28, 2007 13:02
One does not "believe" in evolution anymore than one believes in gravity. Gravity exists, and exerts its influence throughout the... [MORE]
MacTurk
May 25, 2007 13:01
MacTurk comments that "One does not believe in evolution any more than one believes in gravity. Gravity exists ... "... [MORE]
Steve Bartholomew
May 27, 2007 22:00
Regarding those writers who believe that evolution is an absolute fact have yet to show me the creatures or whatever... [MORE]
E. Koos
May 25, 2007 04:51
Dear Sir,
This was a deliberate, scripted, planned in advance question designed to embarass the candidates. It was posed by a... [MORE]
Roy Lofquist
May 25, 2007 01:41
It'shard to believe that anyone claiming to be aware of the science in biology would at this date still be... [MORE]
Harry Eagar
May 24, 2007 23:37
There have been 22 species of human alone. Perhaps if we weren't in the unusual point of our evolutionary history... [MORE]
Scott Baker
May 24, 2007 16:49
When a politician is asked about evolution the question could be rephrased: "Does religion trump science in the arena of... [MORE]
Del Dodge
May 24, 2007 14:52
Its even easier to just say yes, and that evolution is just one of many laws (gravity, electromagnetism) and processes... [MORE]
Charles Miller
May 24, 2007 14:15
Mr. Blackwell is wrong on everything. First, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. One is just a... [MORE]
Scott Baker
May 24, 2007 11:02
We can't DO evolution. We can DO hybridization (aritifical selection). We can breed animals to our hearts content, and my... [MORE]
Pepper
May 24, 2007 13:24
Scott Baker made a misstep when he talks about intermediate forms in nature. It is true there exist fish and... [MORE]
Paul Hamilton
May 24, 2007 13:50
If one is longer and more complicated then that is in fact a difference. A fish eye is a fish... [MORE]
Wallyhuck
May 24, 2007 14:31
Mr. Baker, you seem to be needlessly blind on just about every subject Mr. Blackwell mentions.
1. Microevolution and macroevolution, as... [MORE]
Mark Romer
May 24, 2007 18:31
No intermediate forms? Then why do horses have "chestnuts"? Why do whales have vestigial pelvises? Could a flying squirrel be... [MORE]
Thomas Collet
May 25, 2007 14:28
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Blackwell should really learn some real science, and not the religion infused garbage he's been reading. The... [MORE]
Grant Canyon
May 24, 2007 09:55
As the previous two comments demonstrate, "evolution" is an emotionally freighted term that is broadly defined. It seems to be... [MORE]
Charles Putnam
May 24, 2007 14:02
There is a myth propagated by opponents of Darwinian evolution that many credentialed scientists question evolution's veracity. The only serious... [MORE]
Thomas Collet
May 24, 2007 17:59
There are a plethora of scientists that will say evolution does not have a leg to stand on. Many of... [MORE]
Chris Leach
May 25, 2007 07:52
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an... [MORE]
Donald Dunnam
May 25, 2007 14:13
If any scientist can disprove evolution he needs to get his paper typed up and off to the Nobel commitee... [MORE]
Thomas Collet
May 25, 2007 17:33
You start out by claiming there are a bunch of atheist scientists who have come out against evolutionary theory. One... [MORE]