[bugsbunny04]

point 1: Fair enough, until you you look at how organized atoms are. The odds are a number greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches in the world squared:1, or something like that, that something so organized could be a natural occurance.

point 2:Correction, I was reffering to physics, not neccessarily just chemistry, sorry for the typo.

Energy = Kg x (9.00 x 10^16), always, just by random occurance, everytime? Sure cheif. I tried calculating the odds of that on a TI-83PS and it couldn't handle it, but mabey if I tried it on that computer that carried Pi out the 10^-4, I might be able to figure it out.

More EM stats: (wave length) x (frequency) = (3.00 x 10^8) ( by the way, is there a way to put greek letters on here, anybody looking at this thread who understands what either of us is saying probably could interpret lambda, nu, alpha, beta, gamma, ect., ?), always, just by random occurance. Why can't some of them travel faster or slower?

Lets go to matter in the gas state. The relationship of temperature and volume with a constant preassure (see Charles's Law) as well as preassure and volume at a constant temperature (see Boyle's Law) Note that this is only really and truly consisten in SI units, but works pretty well in the others too with a margin of error that is not really worth mentioning since we are not talking quantum physics or nano technology or anything else that small for that matter.

Point 3: Yeah, we can sustain fusion for one second, in a lab, with precision controls. Sol has been burning up there for millions of years without blowing up all at once, and this is, according to you, a random occurance? Yeah, you expect it to go nova, eventually. If the universe were as random as people who don't believe in any God require it to be, it would have gone nova a long time ago.

A new point: ever notice, in our geological record, we don't see interim species? Sure, we see species that look in between. But do you not see places where the jump from one to another that some of our peers in natural history somewhat proposterous?

Ponder: At first, there were simple thing, this continued for a long time and then WAM! a whole new bunch of organisms suddenly start appearing in a very systematic fashion, tehn they stick around for a few years and the WAM! some more show up. See the trend? If you replace the word day with an average of the number of years between these areas that evolutionists consider periods of rapid adaptation, in an acurate translation of Old Hebrew genesis, and then replace "God created" in front of with "suddenly evolved" behind the various things God is supposed to have created on specific days, it would not be exactly but would be extremely close to what is taught in Earth Science classes across America.

So the argument is not that the earth is only 6000 years old and God created the earth in 6 days vs. we evolved over millions of years. That is completely rediculous. Anyone making the first argument needs some of that Li you mentioned. And the second argument is actually disproved by the gological record that lies under our feet, just as the first one is.

The real argument is this: Did This extremely intricate universe get created by random occurance and then new species show up suddenly, systematically, and ever so often by some sort of radical mutation that by every means we have to study today we can't figure out why the mutations were not more harmful than helpful; Or did a supreme being create the universe and work on it over a period of millions of years as he saw fit, adding species when he saw fit, until he thought it was completed and then added a driver (homo sapiens) (kind of like when I build a project hot rod).

Some how, I think the latter makes more since, but free speech is being able to tell someone else that there exercise of it bradishes there idiocy.