The smallest and most efficient  rotary motor known to man are not built by man. There are found in every living cell. There is not any example of life without these motors.

I'm not sure what relevance that has in this context...

All i know is that the church is corruped, and any religion with strong ties to the church (of any kind) is corruped. Religion as a form of worship is all bad. Religion as a free choice, a private belief on how life became to be and how one should live, is the only good view on religion.

@smidlee

You still haven't provided a single proof that the creation of life wasn't a simple process. You are saying that literature is complex, but the origin of literature is writing, and that is anything but hard. I sense your not going to comprehend this unless I point you in the right direction. Egyptian hieroglyphics are pictorial representations of things found in their own environment. Basically the Egyptians didn't sit down one day, and create a Websters dictionary. They created their written language one word at a time. Thats all the written word really is built one word at a time, and distinctly punctuated by concepts like phonetics, punctuation, tenses, and so forth being added throughout history.

There is no way your going to get Shakespear in heiroglyphics, but Shakespear is what you get to once you start with simple pictures put on surfaces. Life being full of complex systems does not mean that it started out as a complex system. Nor does it mean that it had a complex cause. I invite you to reference Occam's Razor. When their are two theories, and I am being generous. Your trying to argue the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. Which isn't theoretical at all. I could conjecture anything, and argue lack of proof to the contrary is proof positive. Anyway Occam's Razor says that the best theory is the one that makes the least number of assumptions, and is still supported by evidence.

This is my hypothesis that a simple molecule introduced into a media can alter the properties of surrounding material into such a form that will support replication. This is a singular assumption. That a particular molecule can induce complexity by modifying the existing environment. I have proved that materials due to chemical, or physical properties can in fact do this, and generate structures of incredible complexity. Not just in volume, but in pattern. My theory has merit, because molecules doing this have been studied. For instance the Prion that causes Mad Cow disease modifies proteins that it encounters. The prion does not engage in direct self replication. Merely modification of other proteins into copies of itself.

Your theory which isn't really a theory firstly makes the assumption that their is an unnatural force. This has never been proven. That this force has a will, and profound intelligence. This hasn't been documented outside of a human. This unnatural force has supernatural powers. This has never been documented or proven. This force created all life obviously we have never seen a unnatural, smart, superpowerful being do anything. This isn't even testable, or even falsifiable. Just like any crazy thing I could cook up. I am counting at least four massive assumptions with no evidence for any of them, or evidence period for that matter. Not only that your starting from a position of absolute certainty.

I am making one assumption, and it is a very minor assumption. Based on a number of analagous examples. Your making four assumptions with nothing whatsoever. This would be technically considered Bullshit, and while I doubt that you have malicious intent to deceive. I do think that you have been deceived by others. You don't have a point beyond you want to put magic up against science, but the latter has produced verifiable results. While your magic has been the realm of conmen for millenia. You have to admit whether you like it or not that your arguing from no actual position.

By the by water molecules don't expand they line up into latices. The reason liquid water expands is due to the latice creating voids between the molecules, and this is a very peculiar property. Most materials actually shrink as they change phases from liquids into solids. Molecules do not shrink or expand. Though the density of a given amount of a substance can shrink or expand given the amount of energy it contains it doesn't mean the molecules are doing anything more then moving faster or slower.

Anyway you can test this all out for yourself in your own home in just a few minutes. Use a measuring cup, and put a cup of water in it. Then heat the cup in your microwave for a minute. Then look at the water. Did the water get lower in the glass? Well if water molecules really got bigger when they get cold it holds that they should get smaller when they get hot right? With all the moaning about my snowflake analogy. I would have thought that you would have you know bothered to at least go look up some simple information.

By the way we are only talking about the water ice found in our day to day lives. Water Ice has many phases most of which are actually denser then water. Though I am not going to go into that, but I would encourage you to just use a search engine. Oh what the hell your not going to start doing that now. Here is a link.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ice.html

Actually its rather insulting to this community. Not just his conduct, but the conduct of his handler. I always feel that a conversation that takes place in a community should remain in a community. To run off to another community for support, and to encourage one of its members to come over to our community. Well there is a word for that, and it is what we used to call raiding. Basically its a loathsome tactic.

I wouldn't even have had a problem with it had we been asked up front. We probably would have all accepted the challenge. Hell the least he could have done was been up front about how he got here. Instead he just busted into these forums to spread his agenda. Then bolted right back out of the door. Not even being so courteous as to await a response.

I will not go so low as to point the finger. I shouldn't have to point the finger. To actually bring a ringer and a shill into these forums. What the hell were you thinking. I don't care your position on the debate. Don't you have any sense of pride in this community.

Yeah we all got punked.

 That's because you can't prove a negitive with science.

 Mad cow disease  is just another way of destroying life. A lot easier destroyong life than creating it.

  You are still on the snow example when man can clearly reproduce snow with great ease. Man does not just have trouble creating life but even proteins. This is why they are putting spider DNA into goats in order to get the complex spiderweb proteins out of the milk. So far they haven't found a way to make them artifically.

 Here is an interesting recent article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100702100414.htm

 "Transferred to the technical world, this could be described as a power transmission by a coupling rod, which connects for instance the wheels of a steam train."

I do not adhere to current modern evolutionary theories/old earth.

Because:

1. I presuppose that everything the Bible claims is true.  Thus, I believe, as the Bible claims, that the earth and every kind of creature were created in 6 days some 6000 years ago.

2.  I find (mind you, I do) evolutionary theory to be riddled with large assumptions, poor reasoning, and an overall incoherent structure.

I say this not to start an argument over what I find incoherent, or why I take a presuppositional approach, but to demonstrate that I have, at the very least, studied the situation and have come up with an honest answer (but not necessarily right).

I'm not sure what your point is on mad cow disease. Mad Cow Disease is caused by prions which are very similar to viruses. Granted viruses are not life, but they are replicating chemical reactions which is what life is at its very basic. Life/replicating reactions rely on organic matter and the most abundant source of organic matter is life itself which is why these prions attack organisms. This does not in anyway prove that it's easier to destroy life than create it, and even if it is, what does that even prove?

Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It explains the diversity of life. Scientists have created many proteins/amino acids. The reason they take spider DNA into goats is because it's cheaper than creating the protein and then injecting it into goats every couple of years, which is what would be required if they had to produce the proteins themselves. The reason scientists are having difficult creating life is because it took billions of years for life to emerge, and henceforth, would require a catalyst so great for such a reaction to be witness.

Single celled organisms that exist today are not suppose to be simple. They have been evolving almost 4 billion years in environment of harsh competitions. Bacteria are one of the most adaptable organisms on earth and can survive pH levels from 1-14 and temperatures from the vents of lava in the ocean to the top of the Himalayas.

Now the probability of a simple self replicating chemical reaction is fairly slim. After that, the suitest molecule would be the one that replicates the quickest. Eventually those molecules would absorb from other replicating molecules in order to replicate quicker. This was the first competition against other reactions. Some absorbed other molecules and replicated while others found protection through lipid layers(which in water encloses like a bubble) which protected the molecules. This was the first cell. It was very basic.

@smidlee

You know what forget about the snowflake. It is obvious you are drawn to shiny things. Analogies are obviously lost on you completely. I will endeavor not to give you any more visual aid toys. Frankly I am scared where you are going to stick them next. Since I haven't seen much rhyme or reason in the things you say. You just kind of seem to drift off. I need to work to keep you focused.

You claim that since life is a complex thing today. That what caused life in the first place must be equally complex. Now you need to understand something. That happens absolutely nowhere in nature. Further more as a point of fact science uses reductive reasoning. That means it is always desirable to reduce something down to its root simple cause. Further more the opposite of that never happens even theoretically. Hell it even seems to contradict entropy, because it is neiter increasing or decreasing in your reasoning.

Technically your notion cannot actually exist. Yet you claim that it did happen. That is a bold claim, and it demands that you support it with something. Be it a rational and hopefully logical argument. Perhaps even a point of fact. Maybe some form of supporting evidence. Otherwise it isn't even speculation. You would be basically bullshitting. You know making shit up that isn't true.

It is not my job to prove the contrary. I can provide alternate possibilites. More as a point of order as a contemporary in a debate it is my obligation to point out flaws in a argument. I am not obligated to prove a notion to counteract your notion, but to be fair I did present a compelling counter argument for the contrary. The juxtaposition alone should have shown you that your argument was extremely flawed. Further more someone elses ignorance about how to solve a problem is neither proof positive, or an exuse for your own ignorance.

You said it, and now it is on you to back it up. Otherwise concede the point, admit that it wasn't factual, or clarify what you really meant. No more analogies in this one to throw you off. I hope that means you don't have an excuse to dance around the real issue. I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to though. It is getting to be a tired habit with you. Sadly for you I am both persistent and patient. I am pretty confident that I will eventually wear you down.

From the article: "The energy metabolism takes place in the so-called powerhouses of the cell, the mitochondria. They transduce the energy taken up as food into adenosine triphosphate, in short ATP, which is the universal energy currency of life. A chain of five complicated molecular machines in the mitochondrial membrane are responsible for the energy conversion." 

Every living cell known to man requires these "complicated molecular machines" as much as water. Now I am like you that by faith believes there is life that doesn't require these machines. For life comes only from life. So far man hasn't seen any case where life didn't come from life. 

 It's a no brainer today that we know  life is not simple including bacteria because of hindsight but people back in Darwin's day  did, in fact, did see life (cells) as something very simple. Hindsight is always 20/20.