The usual arguments #1: Evolution has not been proven

First let's make an assumption: The Miller-Urey experiment, which had to be designed in order to create a sufficient atmosphere to promote the creation of amino acids (which is what Darwinists claim the earth, in fact was), didn't have to be designed; that our earth could have appeared on our planet in a smaller form that we could've used as the experiment. You are correct in saying, "Amino acids are not life, but they are present in all living organism, so in order for life to appear, amino acids were necessary." If life were to appear, you'd have to have amino acids, yes, but then you'd need about 100 more to create the first protein. Atheists and creationists alike have calculated the probability, Michael Behe says this: ... getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids_ by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row." This is for one protein, not life. For life, you need about 200 of those proteins. You said, " Because they are so simple (prokaryotes), they are very likely to form in an environment that allows amino acids to form." Please now take your assertion and try to support it with the facts stated in the previous paragraph. Even with all the time there can be, this will never happen. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics also bolsters my argument. Yes, atheists claim that you can't apply the 2nd law to life, and while that may be true, you cannot yet state that amino acids and proteins are life. It logically follows then, that non-living chemicals will never form living (organized) beings. (I put 'organized' in parenthesis because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics basically says that all things, left to themselves, will go towards disorder.) This then means your monkey analogy is not applicable to the situation you're trying to apply it to. Next, your "Macro evolution proof" is not proof at all, rather, you are taking non-living organisms that can't reproduce on their own. Viruses and macro evolution are incomparable. Man, your next example isn't at all what you're drumming it up to be. This was the experiment: Take a species of animals (D. melanogaster) put a group in their normal habitat and the other group we'll put in a hotter and more humid climate. Then, they realized that the heat was making them infertile. That's in that happened. You're saying that because they couldn't mate, they were a different species. That means that every infertile woman is not a human! So no, that was not anything to bolster the argument for macro evolution. Lastly, your rebuttal of the beetle is not logically sound in the least. Slight variation to slight variation will still have gotten the beetle killed. Having one chemical present still allows predators to eat it, it would need then two variations (neither of which are slight) in order to have an effective deterrent. Then, you need each to be produced in separate chambers (that makes 3) then muscles to release the right amount of chemicals into another chamber (5), the chamber then needs to be suited for insulating liquid at 100 degrees celsius from the animal (6), and lastly it needs an opening for which the liquid can be expelled (7). All of these had to come about AT THE EXACT SAME TIME in order for the bug to have a defense against the predator. That will not come about by time and chance- it cannot come by chance. Your attack on intelligent design, the fact that God didn't give humans better hearing, is another inadequate charge not holding any weight for your side. For you to know that God has given us a bad design, you must first know the intention of the design. If this earth was created for human survival, it would most likely be made up of human sized caves, a lot of land to live on, and other such things. But maybe, if this world was created for human ENJOYMENT, the creator would have made completely inhabitable land, far too high and cold for us to want to live, but something we could look at and see beauty. We might call that thing a mountain. He might create the world to be 70% water, so that we could have something to explore, and something to wonder what is on the other side. So you can't bash a design if you don't know what it's designed for. "Everything in nature works just fine, but as long as it can be explained by simple science, a creator is not at all necessary." Does this mean that if not everything can be explained by science, a creator is necessary? If so, you'll want to retract that statement. This is why: There are many rational beliefs that cannot be proven by science; therefore, using your logic, a creator is necessary. 1. Math and logic. Science cannot prove math and logic because science needs math and logic to prove and disprove things. 2. Metaphysical truths. Science cannot prove that there are other minds other than my own or your own, we can only believe it to be true. 3. Science. Yep, the belief that the scientific method proves what is true, cannot in fact be proven using the scientific method. This then means that the belief is a logical fallacy and that it cannot be considered true. So the fact that not everything can be proven by science according to your own logic, proves the need for a creator. In conclusion, even having one example that does not line up with the belief of macro evolution means that macro evolution cannot be true. I have given that example (though there are many more, I assure you). I have also provided strong evidence for the lack of convincing data and evidence for the first and simplest form of life, and without this, the whole belief of macro evolution is shut down. I then conclude that the most logical, reasonable, and scientifically sound judgement is that there is a transient, supernatural being that has started the first life, and all life that is. Sources: http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong by: Jonathan Wells "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"- Norman G. Geisler and Frank Turek