brazilnut72: I don't think the "evolutionists" have an issue really with ID being presented in schools. I think the issue is ID being presented in SCIENCE class (or as part of any scientific-based class). You see, ID is based on belief, not science & therefore should not be part of a science class, instead perhaps a religion class or sociology, or even possibly a history-derivative (though I think that is a stretch as well).

I personally think ID is a crock, a last-ditched effort to try and make the mythology of religion into something that looks and smells like science. However, I do not feel that it is right for my beliefs to be forced on the majority of the world who do believe ther...

brazilnut72: I don't think the "evolutionists" have an issue really with ID being presented in schools. I think the issue is ID being presented in SCIENCE class (or as part of any scientific-based class). You see, ID is based on belief, not science & therefore should not be part of a science class, instead perhaps a religion class or sociology, or even possibly a history-derivative (though I think that is a stretch as well).

I personally think ID is a crock, a last-ditched effort to try and make the mythology of religion into something that looks and smells like science. However, I do not feel that it is right for my beliefs to be forced on the majority of the world who do believe there some dude in the sky with mystical powers. (yes, I am being an ass here, sorry). ID if the majority of the children's parents believe it needs to be taught should be placed in schools, but maybe as a separate course. Perhaps a course like: "ID vs. Evolution" could be given as an option as well, so students could take both classes and actually have a good discussion about the merits of both. Thereby deciding for themselves (gasp!) what to believe?

I am definitely against replacing the study of evolution (which is pretty sound) with ID (which is not, from my experience.. yes, I have read a bit about it. But then again, I'm biased).

Just my opinion though And, yes, sorry for being a meanie about the religion bit, but well, it's my opinion, you can ignore it if you like

TheCatWhisperer,

I don't think the "evolutionists" have an issue really with ID being presented in schools. I think the issue is ID being presented in SCIENCE class (or as part of any scientific-based class).

Which is essence is the same thing. "ok kids, in this period we are going to teach Science, and in this period we are going to teach ID." They are saying evolution is science while creationism is not. While there may be many questions creationism cannot answer, there are at least as many question--and possibly more--that evolution cannot answer. But that is ok, because evolution is SCIENCE (tm).

What you call science can tell me that there was a big bang formed by t...

TheCatWhisperer,

I don't think the "evolutionists" have an issue really with ID being presented in schools. I think the issue is ID being presented in SCIENCE class (or as part of any scientific-based class).

Which is essence is the same thing. "ok kids, in this period we are going to teach Science, and in this period we are going to teach ID." They are saying evolution is science while creationism is not. While there may be many questions creationism cannot answer, there are at least as many question--and possibly more--that evolution cannot answer. But that is ok, because evolution is SCIENCE (tm).

What you call science can tell me that there was a big bang formed by the combination of gasses...but it cannot (or will not) tell me where the gasses came from. It is a question evolutionists conveniently ignore by telling me that it does not fall into the realm of science. Bah. As soon as they start thinking about where the gasses come from, they have to think about original cause. And the thought of Original Cause makes many people (including yourself, it would appear) very uncomfortable.

Yikes! I just had to point out that the above talk of "gasses" betrays a serious (but common) misunderstanding of physics. Remember, time itself (as we know it) could not exist before the Big Bang ushered it in, so questions of "what came before" are 100% meaningless. Like much about singularities (and quantum physics), it's hard for us humans to wrap our minds around this fact at first.

I don't have any bookmarks handy on the topic but, as always, Wikipedia has a great overview.

Astronomy Cafe has an excellent FAQ to answer the most common questions about the Big Bang. I would sugg...

Yikes! I just had to point out that the above talk of "gasses" betrays a serious (but common) misunderstanding of physics. Remember, time itself (as we know it) could not exist before the Big Bang ushered it in, so questions of "what came before" are 100% meaningless. Like much about singularities (and quantum physics), it's hard for us humans to wrap our minds around this fact at first.

I don't have any bookmarks handy on the topic but, as always, Wikipedia has a great overview.

Astronomy Cafe has an excellent FAQ to answer the most common questions about the Big Bang. I would suggest starting there for an introduction.

The only thing scientists love more than asking tricky questions is trying to answer them! If you have a question about some aspect of physics, you're likely not the first person. With the internet so ubiquitous, you may very well be able to find an answer to your question, too! I'm no professional, but I'll try to help guide you or others to answers, too.

Ok...

The Catholic Church does feel that evolution is compatible with the church. However according to this article, and this article, the Vatican has outright said that ID is both wrong and in fact "belittles God". Your use of the church/Vatican as support for your argument is a little misplaced.

In fact, according to a few of the top people in the church (including the pope i think) Science and Religion are separate and one should not be used to explain the other.

The basic difference between ID & Evolution is:

ID seems to wants to disprove the science of evolu...

Ok...

The Catholic Church does feel that evolution is compatible with the church. However according to this article, and this article, the Vatican has outright said that ID is both wrong and in fact "belittles God". Your use of the church/Vatican as support for your argument is a little misplaced.

In fact, according to a few of the top people in the church (including the pope i think) Science and Religion are separate and one should not be used to explain the other.

The basic difference between ID & Evolution is:

ID seems to wants to disprove the science of evolution.
Evolution wants to explain where we came from, without saying that God does not exist. (In fact many evolutionary scientists are quite religious)

brazilnut72
"Why is ID not a viable option? Because evolutionists say it isn't? "
No, because it isn't science. Science studies physical phenomena, relies on methods, analysis, and evidence, and the conclusions are provisional and open to scientific question. In Creationism/ID is not science because creationists ignore and distort evidence, methods and analyses are suspect, and the conclusions are forgone.

You said "Evolution co-incides with secular humanism, modernism and atheism, all of which are belief systems." And you said "the Vatican recently informed that evolution is compatible with Roman Catholicism." So Roman Catholicism is compatible with secular humanism and atheism!!?

...

brazilnut72
"Why is ID not a viable option? Because evolutionists say it isn't? "
No, because it isn't science. Science studies physical phenomena, relies on methods, analysis, and evidence, and the conclusions are provisional and open to scientific question. In Creationism/ID is not science because creationists ignore and distort evidence, methods and analyses are suspect, and the conclusions are forgone.

You said "Evolution co-incides with secular humanism, modernism and atheism, all of which are belief systems." And you said "the Vatican recently informed that evolution is compatible with Roman Catholicism." So Roman Catholicism is compatible with secular humanism and atheism!!?

The fact is religion and science are not necessarily incompatible and this is because they are different. Riding a horse is not incompatible with flying a plane--but only as long as you don't try to do them at the same time. There is a time and place for both.

BrazilNut,

What you call science can tell me that there was a big bang formed by the combination of gasses...but it cannot (or will not) tell me where the gasses came from.

Why is it any easier to believe that a God, who has no beginning and has no end, created the universe than it is to believe that the universe has always existed, having no beginning and no end? Part of the underlying problem is the notion of time. Kore7 said there was no time before the big bang. This argument has been well made by noted scientists like Hawking, but there's now another theory on the market. This one suggests that time -...

BrazilNut,

What you call science can tell me that there was a big bang formed by the combination of gasses...but it cannot (or will not) tell me where the gasses came from.

Why is it any easier to believe that a God, who has no beginning and has no end, created the universe than it is to believe that the universe has always existed, having no beginning and no end? Part of the underlying problem is the notion of time. Kore7 said there was no time before the big bang. This argument has been well made by noted scientists like Hawking, but there's now another theory on the market. This one suggests that time - as an actual "thing" - doesn't exist (1), or at least not as we usually think of it as something that flows. It suggests that time is a man made invention to track the interval over which there's a perceived change of state. So if you can think about it this way, everything has always existed it's just a matter of what state those things were in before.

I accept all of these as possible explanations for our existence. They're all valid theories.

What you call science can tell me that there was a big bang formed by the combination of gasses...but it cannot (or will not) tell me where the gasses came from. It is a question evolutionists conveniently ignore by telling me that it does not fall into the realm of science. Bah. As soon as they start thinking about where the gasses come from, they have to think about original cause.

The reason science stops there is because science can’t currently make any testable predictions on where the universe came from. This of course assuming the universe didn't always exist. Science is...

I accept all of these as possible explanations for our existence. They're all valid theories.

What you call science can tell me that there was a big bang formed by the combination of gasses...but it cannot (or will not) tell me where the gasses came from. It is a question evolutionists conveniently ignore by telling me that it does not fall into the realm of science. Bah. As soon as they start thinking about where the gasses come from, they have to think about original cause.

The reason science stops there is because science can’t currently make any testable predictions on where the universe came from. This of course assuming the universe didn't always exist. Science is based on, unsurprisingly, the scientific method. Since we can't use those methods, all we can do is speculate and attempt to come up with ways to test our theories.

Likewise since we can't use the scientific method to test ID, it can't be scientific. This makes ID the province of philosophy.

This is also why intelligent design should be nothing more than a foreward in a Biology lesson-plan discussing evolution. It's not the responsibility of science to preach unsubstantiated theories, it's the responsibility of high school science courses to show that which has been demonstrated and reproduced time and again. This is also why [url=url=http://tinyurl.com/gcbbt]Lynds time model[/url] isn't being taught in physics and cosmology classes. It's a theory, and one that hasn't been scrutinized enough such to be considered "verifiably true."

Evolution is not a theory, but a hypothesis. If you doubt this I can explain and prove my point.

ID requires faith. But so does evolution. Faith is the belief in something you have never seen. Have you ever seen evolution occuring today? Have you ever seen evolution occuring in the past? I leave the answer to you.

I have a challenge for those of you who defend evolution. Put down your books on evolution and try reading a book that defends ID. If evolution is as sound as you claim it is you should have nothing to fear and all to gain, being able to now further discredit ID. I suggest you start with "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson (the first chapter happens to be on the very...

Evolution is not a theory, but a hypothesis. If you doubt this I can explain and prove my point.

ID requires faith. But so does evolution. Faith is the belief in something you have never seen. Have you ever seen evolution occuring today? Have you ever seen evolution occuring in the past? I leave the answer to you.

I have a challenge for those of you who defend evolution. Put down your books on evolution and try reading a book that defends ID. If evolution is as sound as you claim it is you should have nothing to fear and all to gain, being able to now further discredit ID. I suggest you start with "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson (the first chapter happens to be on the very topic several of you have been discussing above). Another one I would recommend is "Creation as Science" by Hugh Ross, which my dad is currently reading. "Creation as Science" demonstrates how ID can be scientific as well as religious. Think about it, and try not to make excuses. "Darwin on Trial" is not very long and quite easy to read (I read the first chapter in an hour). ID school textbooks teach the evidence for both, so why can't you do the same?

~* {FS} *~

I've studied both evolution and ID, why can't you?

BECAUSE IT IS RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT.

I looked into it, read some about it, and it is complete and utter BS, that's my opinion. I don't need to study it more.. It's crap. Made up, fantasy, raving madness even.

Btw: I'll ignore any damned question I want. Especially if it is inane and just the same question over and over and over again.. you think that if you answer every response with a question and someone doesn't answer you win, well your wrong. At some point you've been given enough responses & you are either too stubborn to look, or you just don't want an answer & want to provoke.

I've given enough information (in thi...

I've studied both evolution and ID, why can't you?

BECAUSE IT IS RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT.

I looked into it, read some about it, and it is complete and utter BS, that's my opinion. I don't need to study it more.. It's crap. Made up, fantasy, raving madness even.

Btw: I'll ignore any damned question I want. Especially if it is inane and just the same question over and over and over again.. you think that if you answer every response with a question and someone doesn't answer you win, well your wrong. At some point you've been given enough responses & you are either too stubborn to look, or you just don't want an answer & want to provoke.

I've given enough information (in this & other clips) to backup my claims. Get over it. Your wrong

If you and I were in a debate, I would have just won by defalt.

But that aside, if you wish to continue I will as well.

ID requires faith. But so does evolution. Faith is the belief in
something you have never seen. Have you ever seen evolution occuring
today? Have you ever seen evolution occuring in the past?

As for it [ID] being fantasy, it is no more so than evolution. Evolution is a hypothesis, called a theory, treated as fact.

To
believe in something you have never seen (a hypothesis in scientific
terms) as if it were fact is the same as what you call the "religion"
of ID. I could just as well say that evolution is, to use your own
words, "religious bull...

If you and I were in a debate, I would have just won by defalt.

But that aside, if you wish to continue I will as well.

ID requires faith. But so does evolution. Faith is the belief in
something you have never seen. Have you ever seen evolution occuring
today? Have you ever seen evolution occuring in the past?

As for it [ID] being fantasy, it is no more so than evolution. Evolution is a hypothesis, called a theory, treated as fact.

To
believe in something you have never seen (a hypothesis in scientific
terms) as if it were fact is the same as what you call the "religion"
of ID. I could just as well say that evolution is, to use your own
words, "religious bullshit."

If I happen to say the same thing in different clips, then I am sorry.
I focus more on what I am responding to rather than who. I only
intentionaly repeat myself when I feel my question or statement has not
been proporly answered. If you think you have answered, then simply
say so.

As for ignoring my questions, however, that only proves your defeat,
whether you wish to admit it or not. If I misunderstand something,
show me why. If I am wrong, tell me how. You say ID is fantasy and
BS, fine; but unless you can back up what you say with proof it is
nothing more then an opinion, unscientific and, for all I know,
untrue. I can say the sky if green but you believe it to blue. Would
you take my word as true without any proof? I think not, so excuse me
if I don't do the same.

~* {FS} *~

ID requires faith.

Faith is required for belief in God. However, ID focuses on scientific issues. There seems to be a gross misunderstanding about the research into intelligent design. I suggest if want to be more educated about your argument for Evolution you at least know what the ID crowd argues and their evidence. Many well known scientists, scholars, and researchers have opened many doors and raised lots of questions. In fact, there are many scientists swithching to the ID side. Many former evolutionists like Anthony Flue, Michael Behe, and many others. Evolution is losing adherents.
Personally, I have always taken Evolution for granted. However, if you have an open mind,...

ID requires faith.

Faith is required for belief in God. However, ID focuses on scientific issues. There seems to be a gross misunderstanding about the research into intelligent design. I suggest if want to be more educated about your argument for Evolution you at least know what the ID crowd argues and their evidence. Many well known scientists, scholars, and researchers have opened many doors and raised lots of questions. In fact, there are many scientists swithching to the ID side. Many former evolutionists like Anthony Flue, Michael Behe, and many others. Evolution is losing adherents.
Personally, I have always taken Evolution for granted. However, if you have an open mind, then look at the facts and the arguments you can see Evolution is not all that clear. The debate gets more interesting every day.

Also, Brazilnut is right that the energy and vigor behind opposition to ID does occur with at least as much zeal.

EG's invective about people living in denial begs the question from EG about what it is he IS NOT in denial about and how he came to be in the state of non-denial.

Will, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't read... I have... I have a good understanding (or as good as I can without being an expert) on both ID & Evolution (well, Darwinian evolution). I've read a number of papers from many sources that back ID, including those done by the "Discovery Institute".. which if it weren't for their mostly Christian Fundamentalist backing, would make good arguments. However, after reading many sources, I still cannot abbide byt the principles and ideas brought forth in ID. It is not from lack of looking, it is mainly based on the basic idea of ID.. that the world & universe were designed Intelligently... that assumes SOMETHING designed the...

Will, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't read... I have... I have a good understanding (or as good as I can without being an expert) on both ID & Evolution (well, Darwinian evolution). I've read a number of papers from many sources that back ID, including those done by the "Discovery Institute".. which if it weren't for their mostly Christian Fundamentalist backing, would make good arguments. However, after reading many sources, I still cannot abbide byt the principles and ideas brought forth in ID. It is not from lack of looking, it is mainly based on the basic idea of ID.. that the world & universe were designed Intelligently... that assumes SOMETHING designed them.

I admit I tend to fall into the trap of assuming that ID HAS TO be attributed to God. When many of the papers explicitly say other wise (though they all say that there had to be a designer).

However, do not confuse disagreement with ignorance.

Do not confuse disagreement with
ignorance. You are right to say this, but I
think you do not understand Evolution as fully as you claim to.

You
claim that ID requires a God but evolution does not. A
very common belief, which I can prove, scientifically, to be
incorrect.

It has to do with the scientific law of
Causality. Every effect must have a cause.
If you enter a room and see a ball in one corner, then leave, and
come back and see in now in another corner, the only explanation
is that something moved it; it could not move itself.
Let me use an example closer to my main point; a bottle of
nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerin, in its pure form, is ...

Do not confuse disagreement with
ignorance. You are right to say this, but I
think you do not understand Evolution as fully as you claim to.

You
claim that ID requires a God but evolution does not. A
very common belief, which I can prove, scientifically, to be
incorrect.

It has to do with the scientific law of
Causality. Every effect must have a cause.
If you enter a room and see a ball in one corner, then leave, and
come back and see in now in another corner, the only explanation
is that something moved it; it could not move itself.
Let me use an example closer to my main point; a bottle of
nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerin, in its pure form, is a contact
explosive (physical shock can cause it to explode). Now,
if I put a bottle of nitroglycerin inside a safe, which I then place
in a room, it would be safe to say that nothing can shock the
bottle. Therefor, nothing can cause (physical shock) the
nitroglycerin (something) to explode (effect).

Now
let us look at the Big Bang, the supposed origins of the universe.

"In the beginning there was nothing,
and nothing exploded." Obviously this is stupid, so lets
phrase it in a way that is more scientifically plausible
"In the beginning there was something,
and something exploded." Better, but there is still one problem We have our
nitroglycerin (something) and our effect (explosion),
but where is our cause? According to the scientific
law of Causality, there had to have been something to trigger the
explosion, in other words a First Cause.

Now, you could
say that something else (some other matter) was the First Cause. But even this new "First Cause" would
need something to cause it, due to the fact that it is physical and
thus falls under the jurisdiction of the law of Causality.
Science forbids anything physical from being a First Cause.
Our only option, therefor, is that something

Willhelm writes

You can dismiss it on scientific grounds if you want. But it is valid.

Sure it's valid. Just not on scientiifc grounds.

All I am saying is that you should at least look at the evidence. For
example, the anthropic principle or irreducible complexity...

Well, those aren't evidence. They are assertions.
"The Principle of Irreducible Complexity" and "The Anthropic Principle" are both variations on the now largely defunct "watchmaker" argument--"Things exist, therefore God exists" or more precisely "complicated things exist, therefore God exists." The first is an attempt to define how complicated a thing needs to be before it must be "Intell...

Willhelm writes

You can dismiss it on scientific grounds if you want. But it is valid.

Sure it's valid. Just not on scientiifc grounds.

All I am saying is that you should at least look at the evidence. For
example, the anthropic principle or irreducible complexity...

Well, those aren't evidence. They are assertions.
"The Principle of Irreducible Complexity" and "The Anthropic Principle" are both variations on the now largely defunct "watchmaker" argument--"Things exist, therefore God exists" or more precisely "complicated things exist, therefore God exists." The first is an attempt to define how complicated a thing needs to be before it must be "Intelligently Designed." The second basically asserts life can only arise in situations so complicated that these situations just had to have been "Intelligently Designed." QED, there is an "Intelligent Designer." Articles of faith dressed up in tawdry new clothing .

"Then what created god? What was god's first cause?"

You weren't listening to what I was saying.

The Big Bang is a physical effect, and as such falls under the jurisdiction of scientific law; thus needing a cause.

God is a spiritual effect, and as such is not influenced by laws of science; thus needing no cause.
It still comes down to the fact that the law of Causality forbids a physical First Cause. Every effect must have a cause.
Example:
Stand up a line of dominoes so that they will each knock over the one in front. The domino at one end is the Big Bang while the domino at the other end is modern day. Evolutionists try to say that the Big Bang domino fe...

"Then what created god? What was god's first cause?"

You weren't listening to what I was saying.

The Big Bang is a physical effect, and as such falls under the jurisdiction of scientific law; thus needing a cause.

God is a spiritual effect, and as such is not influenced by laws of science; thus needing no cause.
It still comes down to the fact that the law of Causality forbids a physical First Cause. Every effect must have a cause.
Example:
Stand up a line of dominoes so that they will each knock over the one in front. The domino at one end is the Big Bang while the domino at the other end is modern day. Evolutionists try to say that the Big Bang domino fell over and started a series of events that led us to where we are to day.
But what caused the Big Bang domino to fall over? There are three answers.
1) Nothing.
2) Another effect.
3) God.
The first answer outright defies the law of Causality.


The second answer raises the question "well then, what caused that domino to fall over?" again giving us only three answers.
The third answer is the only one that fits because, as I stated above, God is outside the realms of scientific law.


~* {FS} *~

I personally think ID is a crock, a last-ditched effort to try and make
the mythology of religion into something that looks and smells like
science.

This suggests you really dont understand ID arguments CW.

Then what created god? What was god's first cause? You can't say the
big bang could not happen if god did not exist to make it so without
agreeing that the same principal must exist for god. I just don't buy
that, sorry.

This question is answered definitionally.

Also CW, As time has gone by Evolution has been diminished. A valid theory would normally increase in evidence as time goes by. However, as we learn more about the details of biochemistry, genetic...

I personally think ID is a crock, a last-ditched effort to try and make
the mythology of religion into something that looks and smells like
science.

This suggests you really dont understand ID arguments CW.

Then what created god? What was god's first cause? You can't say the
big bang could not happen if god did not exist to make it so without
agreeing that the same principal must exist for god. I just don't buy
that, sorry.

This question is answered definitionally.

Also CW, As time has gone by Evolution has been diminished. A valid theory would normally increase in evidence as time goes by. However, as we learn more about the details of biochemistry, genetics, and information theory it becomes more evident that is at least hindered a bit.
For Evolution to be a fact you need to have at least 2 things: 1) life coming from non-life and 2) Life changinging from simple to complex. On point 1 no-one can demonstrate how the whole thing got rolling. How can you have the fact of evolution without abiogenesis. You cannot!
Which leaves the fact that evolution requires faith and support from materialist philosophy. However, when actual reasoning is applied this philosophy fails. So there is just as much, if not more, faith in evolution ideas as there is in ID.
It is for this reason, I wish you would not diminish ID as a lark of faith, because it really does not correctly describe many of the people that do work in that field and shows a great amount of arrogance in the face of the many scientists that have come over to the ID side of the debate.

willhelm said:

This suggests you really dont understand ID arguments CW.

No it doesn't it suggest that you and I differ in opinion, and what we think we know about ID. Are you an expert? No. Neither am I, but I've read quite a bit, and feel I have a pretty good grasp. If you feel you have information that contradicts what you think I believe, then present it (with a link so I can read further), otherwise keep you snarky comments to your self, it doesn't further the discussion or anyone's knowledge of the topic.

I still think ID is a crock.. I have not ready anything that makes me believe otherwise. Likewise, others (maybe you included) think evolution is a crock.. I may disag...

willhelm said:

This suggests you really dont understand ID arguments CW.

No it doesn't it suggest that you and I differ in opinion, and what we think we know about ID. Are you an expert? No. Neither am I, but I've read quite a bit, and feel I have a pretty good grasp. If you feel you have information that contradicts what you think I believe, then present it (with a link so I can read further), otherwise keep you snarky comments to your self, it doesn't further the discussion or anyone's knowledge of the topic.

I still think ID is a crock.. I have not ready anything that makes me believe otherwise. Likewise, others (maybe you included) think evolution is a crock.. I may disagree with you and think you someone nuts, but it's your right to think that way.

I wish you would not diminish ID as a lark of faith, because it really does not correctly describe many of the people that do work in that field and shows a great amount of arrogance in the face of the many scientists that have come over to the ID side of the debate

Ok, Will, explain ID to me in simple words (since you think I'm a bit thick skulled). Explain how ID works without the presence of a greater being or a creator.

My main beef with ID is that it requires a creator (Intelligence Designer). As well probably all know, I don't believe in that concept (That there is a greater being...)

I don't believe or buy that spiritual entities don't have to have a source, but ph...

I wish you would not diminish ID as a lark of faith, because it really does not correctly describe many of the people that do work in that field and shows a great amount of arrogance in the face of the many scientists that have come over to the ID side of the debate

Ok, Will, explain ID to me in simple words (since you think I'm a bit thick skulled). Explain how ID works without the presence of a greater being or a creator.

My main beef with ID is that it requires a creator (Intelligence Designer). As well probably all know, I don't believe in that concept (That there is a greater being...)

I don't believe or buy that spiritual entities don't have to have a source, but physical ones do. That just makes no sense to me. IF "god" can always have just "been", then so can the universe.

CatW, no problem. As you probably saw, most of them are abstracts for on-line articles. I can get to the full text for some of them at my office if there is something in particular. Otherwise here are two that are freely available. The first is the (excellent) TalkOrigins site, and contains a bibliography with links; the second a freeby from PNAS.

Albrecht Moritz
2006 "Origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars." The Origin of Life . The TalkOrigins Archive

Robert M. Hazen,dagger, Timothy R. Filley*,Dagger , and Glenn A. Goodfriend
"[url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/...

CatW, no problem. As you probably saw, most of them are abstracts for on-line articles. I can get to the full text for some of them at my office if there is something in particular. Otherwise here are two that are freely available. The first is the (excellent) TalkOrigins site, and contains a bibliography with links; the second a freeby from PNAS.

Albrecht Moritz
2006 "Origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars." The Origin of Life . The TalkOrigins Archive

Robert M. Hazen,dagger, Timothy R. Filley*,Dagger , and Glenn A. Goodfriend
"Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences 98(10):5487-5490.

Big words coming from someone who can't answer the questions of 17 year old.

The supposed "life in a test tube" were amino acids, yes. And, yes, amino acids are the "building blocks of life." But just because you have a pile of bricks does NOT mean they can be used to build a house.

The lab producced amino acids were mixed handed, half were left and half were right. In DNA, however, nucleotides are all RIGHT handed. Amino acids found in living organisms are all LEFT handed. Sugars found in living organisms are all RIGHT handed. The "life in a test tube" could not produce either DNA, life supporting amino acids, or life supporting sugars because there is no know way to "switch" the ha...

Big words coming from someone who can't answer the questions of 17 year old.

The supposed "life in a test tube" were amino acids, yes. And, yes, amino acids are the "building blocks of life." But just because you have a pile of bricks does NOT mean they can be used to build a house.

The lab producced amino acids were mixed handed, half were left and half were right. In DNA, however, nucleotides are all RIGHT handed. Amino acids found in living organisms are all LEFT handed. Sugars found in living organisms are all RIGHT handed. The "life in a test tube" could not produce either DNA, life supporting amino acids, or life supporting sugars because there is no know way to "switch" the handedness of an amino acid from mixed to all right of left.

Now, if any living organism took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organims could not process it. It would be usless, if not harmful.

Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, wouldn't a mutation that switched a plant’s handedness be extreemly benificial for its survival? “Inverted” (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. “Inverted” forests would fill the continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations permit most carriers to defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than evolutionists believe.

~* {FS} *~