One can sucketh my wordeth.
If you can disprove scientific fact by proving that life can originate from dead chemicals, then I shall, like you, apparently, believe in that segment of Darwins Theory. 
Does the creation of a virus from dead chemicals count as life? Because we’ve done that.
Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template.
Science. 2002 Aug 9;297(5583):1016-8. Epub 2002 Jul 11.
Also . . . Darwin didn’t create the RNA world hypothesis.
Not all religions have an “omnipotent being” behind them. Take, for instance, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, and Zen Buddhism. All of these reject any kind of external omnipotent being (if there is one at all).
Then, take different flavors of Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. These may have “deities”, but these deities aren’t omnipotent.
If that is why Evolution exists then I support it even more, anything to get rid of idiotic ideas like, oh, I don’t know… God. Oh by the way I don’t think anyone ever thought Jesus was a monkey. The problem you should be focusing on is if that Jesus character actually existed in the time frame the bible claims he did or rather if he ever existed at all.
Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?
W.C. the Pirate talk is genius! Keep it up. =D>
There is no scientific fact suggesting that life cannot originate from “dead” chemicals. You are wrong. In fact in 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment established that experimental data regarding abiogenesis is possible to acquire.
I would suggest reading the two links I provided they will enlighten you to a very interesting field of science.
Arr! Tha’ twas an interesting read, arr!
Thar be an important conclusion in thar too, m’heartie! ‘Far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first.’
Have yeh feasted yeh eyes on the following bit’o treasure m’heartie?
cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html
Tis quite interesting. A good read I say, arr!
“The typical mechanism proposed to explain the evolution of new proteins is that an existing gene is duplicated, and one of the copies of the gene then begins a series of mutations that eventually results in a gene able to produce a new protein [Ohno 70]. If the mutations result in a change in the shape of the protein, then the protein will probably no longer have a function in the organism, because the function of a protein is closely related to its shape. The mutating duplicated gene is still able to produce a protein, but the protein has no function in the organism. We call such a gene “useless” to indicate that it does produce a protein but the protein has no function in the organism. This is distinct from “pseudogenes,” which no longer produce proteins at all because mutations have corrupted a control region or something else necessary for the gene to function.”
But . . . in immunology we see rapid mutations on antibodies (through recombination) and they result in functional structures, yet highly diverse.
In bacteriology we see how Flagella come from Type III exportin virulence factors . . . We see proteins with radically new functions evolving in the presence of man-made chemicals (bacteria can now eat bioweapons whose chemical structure is unlike anything found in the natural world), while directed evolution in laboratories continues to produce novel compounds and functions at a very high rate.
This paper talks a nice talk, but it basically boils down to irreducible complexity (an old, tired, and very wrong argument) coupled with some nice (but irrelevant) statistics. Statistics only work if they corrolate with the present system. Unless the decrease in world pirates is the cause of global warming (venganza.org/).
evolution proof through DNA:
gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckbilled_platypus
Good book. The time frame problem is discussed in “jesus: 100 years before the Christ”.
We’re all transitional forms.
But if you want some other proof:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish - the lung fish.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckbilled_platypus - An egg laying mammal, with a duck bill
Archaeopteryx - ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
a whale with legs - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1553008.stm
really, so we could then assign any god to this intelligence, Brahmin, Zeus, The flying spaghetti monster, Aliens…
Let’s teach ID, and teach them about all the possible gods that could’ve created us.
and I ask you this… are you worried about the bird flu epidemic?
Why if the theory of evolution is flawed, we have nothing to worry about!
Message deleted.
Avoid thinking of the theory of evolution as anything like a metaphysical Truth. Just think of it as a highly useful explanation for how the current diversity of life could have come into being through a process rather than through any other means.
Because the theory of evolution is such a useful idea it has been embraced by many different scientific disciplines.
Xunzian where is that post from? Who wrote “You are simply displaying the ignorance of which I spoke. ID involves an intelligence greater than anything we’ve seen before, creationism involves a divine intelligence. There’s a difference…” I don’t see that post at all!
Strange, I don’t either anymore. Perhaps they deleted it? No idea. Supposedly it came from Scythekind . . . . yet he is pro-evolution. I’m terribly confused.
That post was mine, but I deleted it due to not liking the tone upon a further reading. You may as well disregard my comments (the bit about ignorance, ID involving a different kind of intelligence and so on) if that suits you…
W.C. I’ll grant you that the problems which your article brings up sound rather legit, however they do not disprove the theory as a whole. There are very few complete scientific theories, usually when they are complete they are called facts. Regardless, if there are problems in protein evolution they will be fleshed out via the scientific process. Xunzian and scythekain bring up some very good points regarding this issue.
THANK YOU! It makes very little sense to apply moral or philosophical meaning to the theory of evolution. Unless your philosophical tradition is somehow threatened by evolution, then I suppose if you must apply a meaning then you must.
I agree, scythekain! I would love it if I were forced to teach ID in a highschool, not that I am teacher, but if i were. It would be a blast to teach that instead of that retarded Christian God the intelligent designer is really a society of pan-dimensional rats searching for the ultimate question.
siatd :
If a theory states that God created something then it is creationist.
GateControlTheory:
Scientific method is about having no absolute cirtainty, that any theory should only gain credibility though evidence, logic and trying to keep everything down to it’s simplest common denominators. Scientific theories start with gathering evidence about the world and reality in general and then piece them together into theories. There is no faith involved as scientists are constantly trying to disprove science. Anyone who thinks faith is in any way related to science should try to read up on the scientific method. What you will learn will be invaluable in helping you determine if something is true, and you will also learn that having a conclusion and gathering evidence to support it rather than deriving the conclution from the evidence is a sure path to arrogance and ignorance from which no truth could ever fruit.
Drift:
If science worships anything (although they don’t) it would be the search for pure truth where no text or theory is ever said to be infallible. Unlike you true scientists hold no image of God. There are a couple of nutty scientists out there who give science a bad name (eg. Paul Davies) but no-one can tell us there are no nutbar religions out there. That’s just how the world works.
To any Christians who are trying to portray ‘Intelligent Design’ as science, you KNOW it is not science. REMEMBER: ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.’ 
quote from unknown source:
‘We are all athiests to nearly all the gods through history, but some of us just go one God further than others.’
I forgot about the pan-dimensional rats!!!
God, I could really use a pan galactic gargle blaster right about now!
The source is Richard Dawkins from the Blind Watchmaker.
Actually not just from the BW, he’s been using that one since he came up with it. It’s almost like a catch phrase.
laughable.this coming from a monkey. that, yet another sickening misquote comeing from someone who dosnt have a clue about the bible.
that scripture was partaining to a false witness at a legal trial.
Intelligent Design. those who deny god’s existence are inexuseable.
we created by random elements.random BECOMES factual,logical.
i’ll tell you what’s random:that you ever got the idea that the human brain,most complex organ in existance,came to be from random events,not design.NO way in hell does this complexity randomly get put together and work. none at all.
Counter-arguement?
That is an interesting way to describe the activites of science. Still they don’t give out Nobel prizes for disproving things now do they?
One might equally say that anywho who fully trusts the scientific method ought to read up on the work of David Hume, Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn.
Yet we see other, closely related primates with brains similar to ours.
Go back, and dogs, cats, mice . . . they all have central nervous systems of varying complexity, yet still similar to our own.
Go back, and you have birds and lizards. They still possess a central nervous system, yet it is no-where near the complexity of our own; however it is still quite similar.
Go back, and you have fish. They have a very rudimentary CNS, barely more complicated than a peripheral nervous system . . . just centralized.
Go back, you’ve got insects. They have a well developed peripheral nervous system. All the hallmarks are there, it is merely not centralized.
Go back, you’ve got nematode worms. They have a fairly primitive peripheral nervous system.
Go back, you have even simpler worms. They have light sensing organs, and chemotactic signallers.
Go back, you’ve got simple eukaryotes with highly developed sensors for the environment around them. They are able to recieve signals from a ligand binding, or a shift in local ionic concentration. These subtle changes lead to an internal signalling cascade altering gene transcription in the nucleus.
Go back, you have archaea. They too have highly developed sensor proteins. Rather than the G-proteins and tyrosine kinases of the simple eukaryotes they have two-component regulatory systems a simple combination of proteins on a membrane.
How can we not explain how something as complex as a brain evolved?