If you can answer this then you'll have a case for evolution...

[Redeemed Clay]

evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.

even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey, where did the
monkey come from... and that come from... and that come from... all the way back to the beginning.
he knows his belief system avoids producing evidence showing himself and the whole world of how
nonliving elements of the earth initiated life in themselves. this is what he wants. he is not a
person to think things through.

the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
any combination brings them to life. call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
not alive.

the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body are easily found on the
Internet.

none of these elements are alive in and of themselves. the living human being is not alive by
reason of the nonliving elements of the earth he is made of... life is not of this world.

before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically need to prove where the monkey
came from. and what made itself into a monkey... and before that, and before that... all the way
back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive. it cant be
done without the Living God having created and putting of His life into the things He created.

well mr. evolutionist, all you are saying in your belief system is that its okay for you to believe
in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe God that He created living things...
for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth and put
into Adam of God's own life.

that it's okay for you to believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
just shows you are trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy
language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself that you don't know what you're talking about...
so you instead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.

the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God from the elements that are in the
earth and not possessing life. God caused of His life to bring to life all living things.

everyone knows this since God took it upon Himself to instill in man the awareness of His presence
just as we read in Romans chapter one... thus rendering everyone " without excuse. " God becomes
justified in judging everyone according to their deeds.

not so in the realm of ' science. ' the whole idea of evolution is an attempt to quell the fearful
spirit in those who know they've got to face the Day of Judgement, guilty.

it is not therefore in the best interest of the evolutionist to upset his belief system with the
truth. he'll continue on watching cartoons which evolve apes into man and believe what his guru's
tell him he is to believe and without a shred of evidence beyond " maybe; perhaps; possibly; etc. "

evolutionists defend a myth. they defend an anti-Christ religion which tells them there is no God
to answer to. they are irresponsible. they just haven't got the mental ability to understand what
they are saying... that life creates itself from elements that are not alive, and from absolute
sterility at that... after all, a part of their belief system requires them to robotically conclude
" early earth " was a burning, poisonous, toxic soup which brought forth life from nothing alive.

wake up. life is not of this world. life comes from the Living God, not dead elements.

[MarkA]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:50:51 -0500, Redeemed Clay wrote:

>
> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the
> earth which are not alive.
>

Actually evolution depends on *exactly* two things: 1) imperfect copying
of information, and 2) differential probability of the copied information
being preserved.

If you study the conditions given above, you will notice that "life" isn't
one of them. That is why cultures, languages, religions, fashion styles,
scientific theories, and other non-living systems also evolve.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:50:51 -0500, Redeemed Clay

<John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.

[ignorant, indefensible religious claims deleted]

>wake up. life is not of this world. life comes from the Living God, not dead elements.

Life is a self-sustaining biochemical process. Gods have nothing to do
with it. There are no "dead" elements, but I suppose you would not know
that since you seem to have been homeschooled by an enemy of knowledge.

[Budikka666]

On Feb 24, 3:50 am, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
wrote:

> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.

Bullshit! Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate sciences, so
even if a creator or an alien intelligence had started life, evolution
is still a fact and the Theory of Evolution is still the only
scientific explanation for the fact of evolution.

But tell me, why did you RUN AWAY when I challenged you to debate this
topic back in mid December:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.antichristnet/browse_frm/thread/89af32dd0e8a8510/5fa9f6ce858c9a08?lnk=gst&q=%22Redeemed+Clay%22+Budikka#5fa9f6ce858c9a08

Was your supposedly omnipotent god unable to help you that day? The
offer still stands. For every item of positive scientific evidence
you post here for a creation or for a creator, I'll post one for
evolution or for abiogenesis and we'll see who runs out first. You
ran out last time without posting a thing. Can your creator god help
you this time if he exists?

But anyway, here's a *tiny* *fraction* of the evidence for abiogenesis
(see below). If you run from this, you will be openly, and
unconditionally, accepting it - that was your challenge, wasn't it -
we present it, you change your mind?

Now where is *your* *positive* *scientific* evidence for a creation?
Please post it as I've done in refutation of your lame challenge -
otherwise you'll be a pathetic little hypocrite, won't you? We all
already know you're a lousy coward.

We know that Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced amino acids, the
building blocks of life, back in 1953:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

We know that other experiments have produced similar results using a
variety of simulated early Earth environments:
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experiment

We know that organic chemicals that play a crucial role in the
chemistry of life are common in space:
http://tinyurl.com/9bfah
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/08/07/1830.aspx

We know that 92 of them have come to Earth on a single meteorite:
http://www.meteorlab.com/METEORLAB2001dev/murchy.htm
"A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well which was similar
to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite

We know that they could survive the impact:
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm

We also know that "locally grown" chemistry have started life:
"A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm

We know that chemicals could congregate in sufficient undisturbed
volume to actually make a start on life:
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4670

We know where these molecules could collect together:
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm

We know that they can form "boundary structures" similar to cell
walls:
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html

We know this can work in practice:
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm

We know that even simple molecules can mimic life:
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm

We know that the first cells wouldn't have been like modern cells, but
how complex would the first cell need to be if it had been a modern
cell?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html

What's the smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4u

J. Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the genome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/

These are discoveries which bring us step-by-step closer to
understanding what happened and what has taken place since:
An introduction to evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/default.htm
Abiogenesis:
http://informationcentre.tripod.com/abiogenesis.html
Origin of life on Earth:
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/orgel.htm
Cells hint at life's origin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Cradle of life?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Lab molecules mimic life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
Mechanism for evolution described:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/222096.stm
Early animal evolution:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm
29+ evidences for macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Only 600 genes separate mice from men:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
Whale evolution:
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetidnew.html
How could an eye evolve?
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html
Are mutations harmful?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Early human evolution:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/default.htm
Same errors in human and chimp DNA:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Humans and chimps not so different:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Humans-Over-Primates-NOT12apr02.htm
The evidence for human evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Transitional snake with legs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/680116.stm
Fossil bridges land and sea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/701008.stm
Feathery fossil shed light on origins:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058475.stm
Archaeopteryx:
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.html
wings for speed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/336192.stm
Bones make feathers fly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/879956.stm
Changing one gene launches new fly species:
http://www2.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/uocm-cog120403.php
Transitional vertebrate fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Transition to mammals:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
The fossil record:
http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html
Transition to land:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/dyk.html
origin of feathers:
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1997Dec/msg00031.html
Sickle-clawed bird:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/sickle.htm
Different species with the same junk DNA:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dna_virus.html
Evidences for Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
jury-rigged "design":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
robots programmed using evolution exhibit altruism:
http://www.ecal2007.org/prog/abs/kop.htm

The so-called "Chain of Life" can be seen, alive today, in the major
vertebrate groups: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. These
groups are not as distinct as creationists love to lie that they are.

Take fish, to begin with. There are almost 28,000 species of them
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish), about a third of which are
freshwater varieties. Creationists love to claim that 28,000 pairs of
fish didn't need to be on the ark because they can swim on a flooded
planet, but they carefully ignore the fact that freshwater fish do not
do well in saltwater and vice-versa.

Nor do deepwater fish do well in the shallows and vice-versa. Nor do
fish specifically adapted to the polar regions do well in the tropics
and vice-versa. Nor does any species of aquatic life thrive in mud
broth, which is what the ocean
would be in a global flood.

Somewhere along the way, no matter what your perspective, fish *had*
to evolve to explain these 28,000 or so species. And we can see
examples of what they were doing in the fossil record, but just as
importantly, we can see examples of what they are doing to evolve and
survive today amongst the living populations.

Take the killifish for example:
http://www.newkerala.com/oct.php?action=fullnews&id=12015
This is a fish - but a fish that can live in insect burrows in
mangrove trees for extended periods when the local mangrove pools dry
up.

Frogfish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1ATGAEnLzI
This is a fish that can walk as easily along the bottom as it can
swim. It effectively has legs, yet is still a fish.

Mudskipper:
http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/verts/mudskipper.htm
This lives in the littoral region - where the sea meets the shore and
is pretty much as at home out of the water as it is in it. Yet it's a
fish.

Everyone has heard of Lungfish:
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/images/8733.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

But has everyone heard of the walking catfish, and catfish that hunt
out of the water?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338989

Yes, they're still fish, but they're actually taking the first step or
two along the path to becoming amphibians, even without a huge
environmental incentive. What would fish such as these become given
sufficient time and natural selection?

The next step up from these fish is a true amphibian, and even amongst
those, there is some oddity. Consider the Axolotl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl
It's an amphibian which effectively spends its entire life as a fish,
never leaving the water, but able to survive low water levels and
poorly oxygenated water. In rare circumstances it will mature into
what it actually is - a mole salamander. Axolotls are more advanced
than humans - in at least one regard. They can regenerate lost limbs,
which we cannot do naturally, not even in our wildest dreams, although
science doubtlessly will one day allow us to do this.

In the amphibian world, there's also an impressive variety. People
tend to think that amphibians are tied to water because that's where
they have to lay their eggs, but this isn't always true as we see at:
http://www.livingunderworld.org
http://tinyurl.com/3duox5
"Salamandra atra, usually only produce one or two offspring out of a
clutch of 20-30, which are delivered as fully morphed, miniature
adults. The remaining, unfertilized eggs provide nourishment to the
developing larvae when their yolk sacs have been exhausted. The larvae
of Salamandra atra obtain further nourishment by scraping the mothers
reproductive tract with specialized teeth, which provides them with
enough nourishment to last through the 2-4 year gestation period.
Similar behavior is also observed in some populations of Salamandra
salamandra, but with a slight twist; after all the unfertilized eggs
have been consumed, some developing larvae may cannibalize other
developing larvae within the mothers oviduct. All larval development
occurs within the mother, making these species true terrestrials."

In other words, this amphibian is already heading away from its
dependence upon water.

But what about those cannibalistic babies? Did a loving intelligent
designer create this mean and barbaric system, or did it actually
evolve? These are not the only cannibals. Consider the caecilians
described at www.scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist:
http://tinyurl.com/2799q6

This is the best a loving god can do?

Moving on to reptiles, what, exactly, is the tuatara?
http://tinyurl.com/233k6p
(at http://www.panda.org)

It's not an amphibian, but neither is it like any other reptile. You
might call it a living fossil. It's so strange that it has a whole
order all to itself, the rhynchocephalia.

Like fish and amphibians, reptiles are not at all uniform. Some lay
eggs, others, such as the venomous cottonmouth:
http://tinyurl.com/26697t
(at www.nationalzoo.si.edu)
develop young inside their bodies (but the young can also pop out of
eggs immediately after the eggs are laid). The cottonmouth is semi-
aquatic but is neither a fish nor an amphibian.

Snakes are a good example of the fact that there isn't one snake
"kind". Snakes can live pretty much anywhere provided the temperature
isn't too chill. There are jungle snakes, plains snakes, prairie
snakes, forest snakes, desert snakes and even sea-snakes:
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/aquaticsnakes/true_sea.html

Any pair of snakes taken aboard the ark would have had to evolve -
evolve significantly and dramatically. There is no getting away from
evolution, even if you're a firm believer in a 6,000 year old Earth
and a global flood just 4,500 or so years ago.

Living representatives of a potential transitional form between
reptiles and mammals are the monotremes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme

They're mammals, but are commonly viewed as primitive even though
they're as evolved as any other living organism, including humans.
They lay eggs, like fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds, but unlike
other mammals; however, the eggs are retained in the body for a while
and "fed" by the mother. The platypus feeds its young with milk, like
other mammals, but even this is different: there is no teat. The milk
simply exudes onto the mother's skin where it can be licked up by the
young.

This was designed? Why? Why just three living monotremes? And where
do the marsupials fit into the grand design? Why are there so few of
these "odd" mammals and why are they so limited in range today?

The transitions, visible in organisms alive today as well as in the
fossil record, go well beyond this, through birds, mammals and
reptiles. In short, we don't need design to explain either the origin
or the evolution of life:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Budikka

[kni...@baawa.com]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:50:51 -0500, Redeemed Clay
<John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:

>
>evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.

Oh boy! This is great!

Let's argue about a done deal.

I am soooo bored.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Immortalist]

On Feb 24, 1:50 am, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
wrote:

Why should we accept your proposal that life cannot come from the
combination of non living matter?

Obviously some basic materials can be combined in ways that produce
different behavior at higher levels of organization, behavior which
cannot be displayed by the elements when separated.

Emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a
multiplicity of relatively simple interactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Your only entitled to claim that life may or may not emerge from inert
matter.

[Immortalist]

On Feb 24, 1:50 am, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
wrote:

[Csaba Farkasescue]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:50:51 -0500, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com> wrote:

>
>evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.
>
>even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey, where did the
>monkey come from... and that come from... and that come from... all the way back to the beginning.

But then, the superstitious have the exact same problem; Where did their god come from?

The difference being that we look to science for an answer, they look to magic, and
special pleading.

[Mel O'Gaster]

On Feb 24, 2:50 am, Redeemed Clay <John20:30,3...@themarketplace.com>
wrote:

> evolution depends on one thing... life coming from the elements of the earth which are not alive.

Say what?

The atoms in my body were not alive before they were incorporated into
it.

Nor are those atoms alive now, when the are a part of my body.

Nor will they ever be alive, no matter how many living bodies they
pass through until life no longer decorates this earth.

Take a molecule of, let us say, cysteine from any cell of my
body. That atom of sulfur is most certainly in no way "alive".
Nor is the atom of nitrogen in any sense whatever "alive".
Nor the two oxygens. And neither are those carbon atoms
"alive", nor the hydrogens.

"Life" is a process, a flow of energy and information, an interaction
of atoms driven by the inescapable imperative of entropy flowing
downhill.

Life is /not/ a pile of atoms. Your objection is simply devoid of
meaning.

Mel

>
> even an evolutionist ponders the question that since he thinks he came from a monkey, where did the
> monkey come from... and that come from... and that come from... all the way back to the beginning.
> he knows his belief system avoids producing evidence showing himself and the whole world of how
> nonliving elements of the earth initiated life in themselves.  this is what he wants.  he is not a
> person to think things through.
>
> the Periodic Table lists all of the elements naturally occurring in our world and none of them by
> any combination brings them to life.  call names as the evolutionists do... curse God all they
> want... they simply will never face the fact that life just doesn't come out of elements that are
> not alive.
>
> the human body for example... which elements comprise the human body are easily found on the
> Internet.
>
> none of these elements are alive in and of themselves.  the living human being is not alive by
> reason of the nonliving elements of the earth he is made of... life is not of this world.
>
> before the evolutionists claim they came from monkeys they logically need to prove where the monkey
> came from.  and what made itself into a monkey...  and before that, and before that... all the way
> back to the first living thing that made itself alive from elements that are not alive.  it cant be
> done without the Living God having created and putting of His life into the things He created.
>

> well mr. evolutionist, allyouare saying in your belief system is that its okay foryouto believe

> in your scientists but its not okay for the elect to believe  God that He created living things...
> for example, the human body from the dust of the earth, that is, the elements of the earth and put
> into Adam of God's own life.
>

> that it's okay foryouto believe your scientists but its not okay for His elect ones to believe God
> just showsyouare trying desperately to hide your ignorance behind your arrogance and filthy

> language... which is a sign of ignorance in itself thatyoudon't know whatyou're talking about...

> soyouinstead try to bully your way through the subject by intimidation.

>
> the facts in the case are simple and direct... man is made by God from the elements that are in the
> earth and not possessing life.  God caused of His life to bring to life all living things.
>
> everyone knows this since God took it upon Himself to instill in man the awareness of His presence
> just as we read in Romans chapter one... thus rendering everyone " without excuse. "  God becomes
> justified in judging everyone according to their deeds.
>
> not so in the realm of ' science. '  the whole idea of evolution is an attempt to quell the fearful
> spirit in those who know they've got to face the Day of Judgement, guilty.
>
> it is not therefore in the best interest of the evolutionist to upset his belief system with the
> truth.  he'll continue on watching cartoons which evolve apes into man and believe what his guru's
> tell him he is to believe and without a shred of evidence beyond " maybe; perhaps; possibly; etc. "
>
> evolutionists defend a myth.  they defend an anti-Christ religion which tells them there is no God

> toanswerto. they are irresponsible.  they just haven't got the mental ability to understand what