Name one example of an act of God. Or proof of God.

[quote]By Bruce Malone [quote]In the 1700's many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800's, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur prove this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again return to believe that life came from nonlife... In spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. [b][u]I'm under the impression this book is a little dated, we have excellent insight to how abiogenesis could have occurred. [/u][/b] The reason this unsupported believe has returned is that science has been defined to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative; the creation of life by an intelligent designer. [b][u]First off, no, we aren't out to get god. Reality happens to just not need him as badly as you want. Secondly, is god a living thing by biological standards? Because if not he just created life from non-life all the same. [/u][/b] Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of the same functions. [b][u]Meaningless details. [/u][/b] Yet most scientists accept the belief that life arose from nonlife (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could not happen). [b][u]Needs a good science update.[/u][/b] This incredible belief is as absurd as finding a complex chemical manufacturing facility on Mars and assuming that it built itself. [b][u]No, it isn't.[/u][/b] One classic experiment which is used to support the belief that life "built itself" is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which were circulating common gasses. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. Experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by living cells. Yet the results have repeatedly been heralded as evidence that life could have arisen by itself. [b][u]Proved that chemicals associated with life can arise from non-life.[/u][/b] Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported. For instance, are early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. [b][u]Probably had a little oxygen. [/u][/b] However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. [b][u]Complex life would be impossible, simple organisms could survive.[/u][/b] Furthermore, oxidize rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present. [b][u]In drastically differing frequencies.[/u][/b] in addition to this, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to develop! [b][u]Assuming sunlight hits everything all the time.[/u][/b] In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products being destroyed as fast as they formed. The biggest problem is that the amino acids form in this experiment always a 50-50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life only contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No anwser to this has ever been found. These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generate itself. [b][u]I don't think there is a definitive answer to this, it could be that L types simply became more prevalent for unknown reasons or were the first to involved in any sort of replication. Any life that followed would be L. [/u][/b] The leaking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility. No experiment has ever shown that matter has the ability to come alive. [b][u]Not yet.[/u][/b] The best explanation for life is still that "life only comes from pre-existing life". As you search for the truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... Is God. [b][u]Our ancestors thought god was the sun, they thought he brought rain, death, we believed he was directly in control of all. We have pushed him back ever slowly away from those positions. It may be time to push him back a little further, as we always have before. [/u][/b]. [/quote] [i]Taken from Bruce A. Malone's book, Search for the Truth[/i] ^^Explain that^^ Also, literally every "example" of evolution is just speciation. Name one actual example of evolution in today's world. My notifications don't work so I may take a while to respond.[/quote]

No that's me. Sorry dude.

Dinosaurs, bitch.

you're trying to poison the well. you are either uneducated on the subject or a -blam!-ing despicable prick.

kill yourself idiot

Take penicillin for your next couple of bacterial infections and tell me how it works out.

lol watch Planet of the Apes. lol.

Thanks for mentioning the Urey Miller experiment, saved me a load of time.