We can and we have; read the scientific literature.
>
>Because nature doesn't create complexity.
>
Obviously this is wrong; read the scientific literature.
>
>Why can't scientists get fruit
>flies to be anything more than screwed up mutants?
>
We can and we have; read the scientific literature.
>
>Because nature doesn't create complexity.
>
Obviously this is wrong; read the scientific literature.
>
>Why can't someone write a computer program that creates
>complexity?
>
We can and we have; read the scientific literature.
>
>Because, apart from intelligence, only nature is left and
>nature can't create complexity.
>
Obviously this is wrong; read the scientific literature.
>
>The Evolutionist, when not playing games about the meaning of "evolution,"
>"complexity," or some other word....
>
It is you who are playing the word games, especially when you refuse to
define your own terms.
>
>...points to snowflakes, Miller's amino
>acids, whatever. But, even a fool can see that nature isn't really
>creating complexity.
>
Oh? Are you saying that a snowflake is not more complex than a random
assortment of water molecules? That amino acids are not more complex than
methane, ammonia or water molecules? So how do you define complexity?
>
>These are just conditions of equilibrium....
>
The snowflake is; Miller's amino acids are not; go read the scientific
literature.
>
>...and the same forces
>that cause these things would also destroy any imposed complexity.
>
Except that the forces that made amino acids would not be the same forces
that would combine them into proteins. And these would not necessarily be
the same forces that combined proteins into a simple metabolic system.
We have been able to dublicate all this in the laboratory, even to creating
simple cells; go read the scientific literature.
So obviously there is no barrier to nature creating complexity.
>
>Or,
>they'll equate a fortuitous mutation with an increase in complexity. But,
>again, even a fool can understand that something doesn't have to be more
>complex to be helpful.
>
No, it doesn't, but what if the mutation increases the genetic information
of an organism and gives it a function it never had before? Would that not
be an increase in complexity? These kinds of mutations have been
documented; go read the scientific literature.
However, I'm glad you recognize that helpful changes need not be complex.
Since evolution works by creating helpful changes, you have just
contradicted your own definition: evolution need not involve an increase in
complexity.
>
>> We read in Isaiah 29:13-24 that God has promised to do something about
>> this. I believe the language of number to be His means of 'destroying
>> the wisdom of the wise'.
>
>Don't forget the NT passage about some people being willingly ignorant
>about the Flood.
>
It's not hard to be ignorant of something that never happened; read the
scientific literature.
Kevin L. O'Brien