Thanks Russ. Magic?

Quote
"'...primordial soup' - a mixture of amino acids that contain all the basic ingredients of life..."
—There are several enormous presumptions behind this statement. Do you see them?
Like the knowledge that amino acids are found in space along with many other complex molecules?

Quote
"...evolution, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation..."
—Ironically, evolutionists resort not only to changing definitions, but changing history.
And yet this is still 'descent with modification' - Darwin's original statement of the theory before the word evolution was applied to it.

Saying things don't make them true Russ.

Quote
Your question is so full of presumptions and departures from classic definitions that it is not answerable without the imposition of vast assumptions. Nevertheless, I'll try to accommodate by further explanation.
Perhaps you can do what CTD has absolutely failed to do -- demonstrate how "the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation" is a departure from the classic definition of "descent with modification" ... or are you also going to avoid the issue?

Quote
First. The laws of basic chemistry prohibit the formation of ever increasing complexity. Instead, the laws are intelligently designed so as to attain stability (as I explained previously). This is a brick wall that evolutionists do not see.
Actually it is an absolute falsehood. Two simple reasons:

(1) Every chemical reaction is reversible. If you don't think so, then please provide one that isn't.

(2) If this were true, then you would starve to death. When you eat your body takes the food and breaks it down, extracts energy and amino acids and proteins, and uses the energy and other products to make more complex molecules that allow you to continue living. It does this by chemical processes, not magic.

Quote
Second. Once complex forms of life were created, they did adapt. This process of adaptation is not classic evolution, although evolutionists (like you) are currently attempting to change related definitions of evolution to look more like adaptation to keep from looking so stupid (called "a retreat").
This adaptation is through the process of descent with modification, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. It is through various mechanisms, including variation, caused by mutation, and natural selection of the better fit variations, that generation after generation act to adapt a population of organisms to the ecology they are living in.

Quote
Adaptation is based on very complex mechanisms that are "built-into" the organism requiring vastly-increased complexity in it's original design. This mechanism is not "error-based" like classic "evolution". Adaptive processes require a design incorporating the concept of anticipation ("looking ahead") which matter simply does not have.
Sorry. This is BS.

Quote
For example, if father works hard physically or spends a lot of time in the sun, he will tend to have children who are bigger or more tan, yet these changes are limited to confines defined in the original design. These are not error-based processes. These are adaptive processes that are built into the organism; Processes which are very complex.
Lamarkism has been falsified. Simply put, you are wrong.

Quote
We really have to discern between the two in order to have intelligent conversation.
You mean between fantasy and reality?

Quote
Furthermore, we have to ask questions that are not filled with presumptions. If we do, we will arrive at assumptive conclusions, such as evolution - As defined before RAZD and friends got their hands on it
Again please demonstrate the difference between Darwin and my definition. Claiming difference without demonstrating it would be ... a claim filled with assumptions and not just a little presumption on your part eh?

Funny, though, you didn't answer the question.

Enjoy.