Ratch

Not everything is explainable by science. Creation is one of them. If science does not accept that, then it is crippling itself. Ratch

I do not understand the link between thermodynamics and genetics the way you described it. My argument centers around the principle that things cannot go from simple to complex on their own unless their transition is preordained by the physical laws. Ratch

This self-organization reference shows it to be a highly theoretical concept that is hard to grasp because of its complexity. The reference also lists criticisms of this theory. My response is "show me the goods". Show me something that happens spontaneously and can be proven not to be deterministic. Crystallization is not a valid example because it follows already established laws of physics. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the evolution of the train, plane, and auto. They are the results of intelligent design and production. But for slime to arrange itself into to life is too much to accept. Just think, a cell would have to appear completely finished and ready to work. It is too much to believe. Creation is a lot easier to accept. Ratch

Done. See above. Ratch

No, I can't think of any. All those chemical and physical processes are determined by the laws of physics. They are preprogrammed to happen in a certain way. The laws of physics do not change, so the particular process will not change either. It is inevitable to happen if the materials and conditions are in place. There is no provision to adapt to different situations. Ratch

OK, you decide the quality of my critical skills Be sure to articulate where they lack judgement. Genetic mutations are limited variations within a species. Take dogs for instance. No matter how many different types of dogs turn up at a dog show, they all have the common characteristics of a canine -good sense of smell, high endurance, nice temperament, and compatibility. No matter how you breed them, you will not change a dog into a donkey. A fruit fly has a quick lifespan of a few weeks. No one has be able to breed a fruit fly into anything else other than a fly. Mutations are not evolution, they are only the limited changes allowed within a species. It is true that mutations can give an advantage to members within a species over those who do not have the mutation. That happened during the industrial revolution where dark colored moths became predominant over white moths. The dark moths were harder for the birds to spot in the sooty environment than white moths. After the pollution was cleaned up, the white moths reappeared. The white moths never completely disappeared. They just became fewer. Crab grass will take over your lawn because it can thrive under more difficult conditions than lawn grass. But lawn grass will not completely disappear. Yes, good traits can be passed on to future generations. That is proven by horse and dog breeding. All that means is that the progeny is the best that can be had. It does not prove evolution changed the species into something fundamentally different. The horse will still be a horse and a dog is still a dog. The leopard will have the best looking coat in the jungle, but it still will be a cat. Time will not allow things happen if it is impossible for things to happen in the first place. The basic premise of evolution is wrong. You cannot show that things go from a simple to a more complex state. It takes an intelligence to make that happen. I will address that principle further in the second thread. Evolution cannot happen. What did happen is a creation. That can explain everything, without tortuous and unproven reasoning and assumptions. Notice that this is not a religious viewpoint, it is a theist view. If you believe evolution to be true, then it is up to you to prove it could happen. No matter how many planets in the universe, or how much time has passed. If evolution cannot happen, it will not happen. Ratch

No, I don't troll. Just because you do not agree with what I aver does not make me a troll. Suspending my participation in this forum tells me that you do not have an immediate cogent response to my points. You should be even-handed about requiring supporting documentation. I see plenty of statements in this thread and others in this forum that are lacking in this respect. It is not practical to document every assertion anyway. These threads are discussions in written format, not a dissertation. I will address the other thread when I have finished with this one. Ratch

Life has to be created to exist. That is the only plausible explanation. The idea that some dead inert material can change and shape all by itself into a complex cellular organism is ludicrous. All over the world, folks are putting a sludge of water, carbon compounds, and various nutrients into test tubes and zapping them with all manner of radiation. They are hoping against hope that something will crawl, hop, or slither out so they can say they created LIFE! They are all doomed to failure. Life creating takes intelligence, a lot more than mankind has today. Anyway, it is easy to see that evolution is a pseudoscience that should not be taken seriously. Ratch

What you should to do is have her explain her critical thinking about what she believes. For instance, if she believes in evolution, then have her explain to you how something dead and inert can arrange itself into even the simplest cellular life all by itself. And furthermore, continue to morph into even more complex multicellular life. Get the idea? Ratch