moreover, the "assertions"
to which you refer are actually called "hypotheses" that
when tested either confirm phenomena or disconfirm pheonomena. when
confirmed over time, these hypotheses become theories due to their
power to explain and predict phenomena. that's the fricking
scientific method! you almost equate evolution to the search for
aliens or alien abductions which bear no predictabilty, are not the
BEST explanations for phenomena, and cannot be dublicated with
various sources of evidence other than personal narratives. that's
why it is an ethnographic interest in anthropology, not a scientific
matter! (no comment other
than this sounds like a rant.)

Also, saying
"e. somehow amino acids got formed;" just shows how little
you clearly understand the theories that are used to describe how
amino acids form. for instance, we can create these acids in labs in
a water base under specific conditions. we know (just
HOW do you “know?”) what the conditions were like on
earth when these acids developed over a very very long time with
intense heat, base chemicals, and glass-like surfaces at the boiling
hot bottom of crater wells. university scientists at institutions
like oregon, harvard, and others are studying these pheonomenon that
CAN be replicated with a compelling argument that the origin of human
life is of alien origin. that would explain in part how the base
chemicals got on this planet and makes sense if you think about how
raw the planet was in its first few millenia. (so,
are you saying that the chemicals used in live organisms formed under
specific conditions but they needed alien life to give the chemicals
life? Were they illegal aliens?)

some
physicists are convinced that string theory works. others are not.
it's up for debate. why is it up for debate? no none has observed the
phenomenon! (wow, you
haven't observed this phenomenon, yet another phenomenon – the
beginning of everything – which you also have not observed, you
feel very comfortable structuring an entire science – evolutionary
science. Do you see the dichotomy?) it was only decades
after special relativity that it the theory was confirmed again and again which is why it is
the basis of physics today. likewise it was only decades after bohr
that it was confirmed he was right about quantum fluctuations and
einstein was wrong. (as I
understand it, string theory explains quantum theory's inability to
explain where anything is at any moment. Which makes it highly
useful.)

arguing about whether evolution is
true or not is like arguing with a physicist is gravity is real or
not. (this is another “from
left field” comment because evolution, at least as you've described
it, doesn't have much explanatory utility.) just because
you do not "See" them in the academic field arguing
different evolutionary models to explain observed phenonena does not mean that they do! regularly.
they present papers, which pass through peer-review, which get
presented at conferences etc… (paper
presentations, peer-review, conferences, etc. equals many
opportunities for group-groping but not much, if any, reproducing.
Which leads me to ask how did reproduction start?)

moreover, the "assertions" to which you refer are actually called "hypotheses" that when tested either confirm phenomena or disconfirm pheonomena. when confirmed over time, these hypotheses become theories due to their power to explain and predict phenomena. that's the fricking scientific method! you almost equate evolution to the search for aliens or alien abductions which bear no predictabilty, are not the BEST explanations for phenomena, and cannot be dublicated with various sources of evidence other than personal narratives. that's why it is an ethnographic interest in anthropology, not a scientific matter!

Also, saying "e. somehow amino acids got formed;" just shows how little you clearly understand the theories that are used to describe how amino acids form. for instance, we can create these acids in labs in a water base under specific conditions. we know what the conditions were like on earth when these acids developed over a very very long time with intense heat, base chemicals, and glass-like surfaces at the boiling hot bottom of crater wells. university scientists at institutions like oregon, harvard, and others are studying these pheonomenon that CAN be replicated with a compelling argument that the origin of human life is of alien origin. that would explain in part how the base chemicals got on this planet and makes sense if you think about how raw the planet was in its first few millenia.

some physicists are convinced that string theory works. others are not. it's up for debate. why is it up for debate? no none has observed the phenomenon! it was only decades after special relativity that it the theory was confirmed again and again which is why it is the basis of physics today. likewise it was only decades after bohr that it was confirmed he was right about quantum fluctuations and einstein was wrong.

arguing about whether evolution is true or not is like arguing with a physicist is gravity is real or not. just because you do not "See" them in the academic field arguing different evolutionary models to explain observed phenonena does not mean that they do! regularly. they present papers, which pass through peer-review, which get presented at conferences etc…

Please allow me to review briefly some of the assumptions that are "must haves" for evolutionists whether biologists, cosmologists, paleontologists or what have you.

a. the universe had a beginning 15-20 billion years ago (pretty big spread, but let's go with it anyway);
b. "before that" the universe was about the size of a walnut: with the "potential" for every molecule in the universe (stars, galaxies, water, humans, you name it);
c. there was no time "before that" and there was no "space"; laws underlying the universe have not changed over time
d. life came from the "primeval oceans" ("pre-biotic soup)";
e. somehow amino acids got formed;
f. then DNA (no telling where the information came from to do that);
g. then single-celled leading to multi-celled organisms;
h. cold-blooded leading to warm-blooded animals; invertebrates leading to vertebrates;
i. "higher" animals became "moral" "rational" ("spiritual"?);
j. there's lots more…
++++++++++++++++++
paleontologists point to vast geologic strata and using some tools "postulate" lower life forms in "older/deeper" strata and higher life forms in "younger/superficial" strata. these "findings" coupled with "evolving features" of fish, birds, etc., evolutionists offer these theories as "fact" in thousands of volumes, documentaries, videos, etc.

I don't have to build "strawmen" because thus far, accepting ANY of the aforementioned is preposterous. Yet, this is what passes for "science" and I am appalled that it's gotten to this point. Surely you are being facetious when you assert that evolutionary biologists…"make no assertions about the origin of matter, only its change in populations over time…" as if they are just these humble statisticians, observing and describing change: hah. How honorable is the evolutionary biologist community? I don't see a groundswell of tens of thousands of members of this community rising up and demanding editing, reprinting texts (especially in middle and high school), conducting seminars, releasing news items, producing videos, etc., explaining that they didn't really mean all the stuff they've been claiming over the years and that's still being taught (On the ***Origin*** of Species?). Naw, that's just not going to happen. So, who's left to set the
record straight? Maybe what you're telling me is that evolutionary biologists have painted themselves into the "just watching and describing the changes" corner. Please don't tell me that there are significant differences between the arguments of cosmology and evolutionary biology ***about matter*** and then assert that I'm building strawmen; not when you've just finished saying that the evolutionary biologist "…asserts…only (matter's) change over time." If the evolutionary biologist only describes change in matter over time, that's not an argument, it's a description (on the way to a theory); so they have no argument. If, on the other hand, you are saying that the evolutionary biologist argues that matter changes over time, I have to disagree (1st Law of thermodynamics). But, more importantly, I doubt that the evolutionary biologists would agree that their discipline is concerned with the change in matter over time.

In an earlier post you said something about Einstein getting it wrong and the proponents of quantum theory getting it "right." Relativity and quantum mechanics are two distinct disciplines with two distinctly different applications (big things vs little things). Are they connected somehow by string theory?

Evolutionists have no way (using materialistic means) of proving where matter came from let alone the laws that make matter what it is after/before it became matter. Evolutionists can hypothesize about the present configuration of the local universe and what they consider "quantum" leaps about the distant. Evolutionists are loathe to use all of the tools at their disposal, though, for to do so would be materialistically illogical. As far as an evolutionist is concerned, nothing exists but matter and only matter can come from matter.

I assume that evolutionists are continuing in their vain attempt(s) to story-tell their way out of the consequences of the 2nd law of thermodynamics…just as you did with your suggestion that crystals explained it away.

Perhaps you understand theology; perhaps the Creator doesn't know you. Which is more important?

i think evolutionists know what problems they are working with including miller. to tell him that he does not understand his science is just stupid. it's like dawkins telling me i don't understand theology. you have a pretty impressive straw-man a-brewing here.

"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility
for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low
temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance
of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of
phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the
formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary
temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give
rise to the highly-ordered structures and to the coordinated functions
characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of
spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly
improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which
prebiotic evolution occurred." Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis & Agnes Babloyants, "Thermodynamics of Evolution," Physics Today, (Vol. 25, November 1972) p. 23.

I doubt that there are "countless mathematical proofs"

Without quibbling: Bohr was not "right" and Einstein "wrong" as those words have moral meaning and in evolution there is no morality. One might say that Bohr observed what he observed and noted it mathematically; Einstein observed what he observed and noted it mathematically. They left their mathematics up to others to prove/disprove and neither of their mathematics have been adequately tried to conclude any one way or another…except by faith in a worldview.

Whether Bohr was a "christian" or not is irrelevant. You are mistaken to conclude that his argument was in favor of "irrational and disordered basis (sic) for the order we perceive." Your next statement, if correct, proves predictability and therefore NOT disorderly and/or chaotic.

Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus "one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." It
is more than a problem, in fact, it is a devastating denial of the
evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until evolutionists
can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space
and time has both a program to guide it and an energy converter to
empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it.

What is science's proof that order and complexity arose out of chaos?

d.