Changes

*'''Initial Ingredients:''' The water from the purest spring, leavening fumes, crushed basil and other such ingredients have been replaced by references to so called '[[Primeval soup|primordial soup]]' or 'warm pond' of unknown composition. Evolutionists such as David Deamer, emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of California at Santa Cruz, have tried to put this idea under the test with the following result: ''"The results are surprising and in some ways disappointing. It seems that hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms.'"'' He further explains the reasons for the setback: ''"in our experiments, the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not undergo any further chemical reactions."'' The conclusion was made that if life really did begin in a 'warm little pond' at all, then it was unlikely in hot volcanic springs or marine hydrothermal vents.<ref>{{cite web |author=Rebecca Morelle |title=Darwin's warm pond idea is tested |date=13 February 2006 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4702336.stm |accessdate=4 August 2013}}</ref>  

*'''Initial Ingredients:''' The water from the purest spring, leavening fumes, crushed basil and other such ingredients have been replaced by references to so called '[[Primeval soup|primordial soup]]' or 'warm pond' of unknown composition. Evolutionists such as David Deamer, emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of California at Santa Cruz, have tried to put this idea under the test with the following result: ''"The results are surprising and in some ways disappointing. It seems that hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms.'"'' He further explains the reasons for the setback: ''"in our experiments, the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not undergo any further chemical reactions."'' The conclusion was made that if life really did begin in a 'warm little pond' at all, then it was unlikely in hot volcanic springs or marine hydrothermal vents.<ref>{{cite web |author=Rebecca Morelle |title=Darwin's warm pond idea is tested |date=13 February 2006 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4702336.stm |accessdate=4 August 2013}}</ref>  

*'''Mechanism:''' The necessity to use flask or cover one brick with another, so that the indentation is completely sealed, has been eased by using 'the little bit of luck' instead.  Evolutionary biologist and University of Oxford's Professor [[Dawkins]] explains: ''"And, of course, the puzzling thing is where does all this complexity come from? Where does all this information come from? It cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get something as complicated as a bird, and as well designed as a bird, or a human, or a hedgehog, coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out. Because to get from nothing, from no complexity, no information, to the extreme complexity of a modern living thing in one step of chance couldn’t possibly happen. That would be like throwing a dice a thousand times and getting six every single time. It’s out of the question. But if you allow a little bit of luck in any one generation, and then a little bit of luck in the next generation, little bit of luck in the next generation, by cumulatively adding this luck{{#tag:ref|In the [[Roman mythology]], good luck was represented by the goddess Felicitas. In his book ''the City of God'' (''De Civitate Dei''), [[Saint Augustine]] compares the [[Idolatry|idolatrous]] [[pagan]] worshipers of this goddess to mistaken primitive and stubborn people who would attempt to satiate their hunger by licking the bread painted on the wood.<ref>{{cite book |title=The City of Gog |author=Saint Augustine (Translated by Marcus Dods) |publisher=Christian Classics Ethereal Library |place=Grand Rapids, MI |chapter=Book IV/23.Concerning Felicity... |url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.pdf |quote=Was Felicity perhaps justly indignant, both because she was invited so late, and was invited not to honor, but rather to reproach, because along with her were worshiped Priapus, and Cloacina, and Fear and Dread, and Ague, and others which were not gods to be worshiped, but the crimes of the worshippers? ...the Capitol was built in such a way that these three also might be within it, yet with such obscure signs that even the most learned men could scarcely know this.  Surely, then, Jupiter himself would by no means despise Felicity, as he was himself despised by Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. ... But if Felicity is not a goddess, because, as is true, it is a gift of God, that god must be sought who has power to give it, and that hurtful multitude of false gods must be abandoned which the vain multitude of foolish men follows after, making gods to itself of the gifts of God, and offending Himself whose gifts they are by the stubbornness of a proud will. For he cannot be free from infelicity who worships Felicity as a goddess, and forsakes God, the giver of felicity; just as he cannot be free from hunger who licks a painted loaf of bread, and does not buy it of the man who has a real one.}}</ref>|group=note}} step by step by step by step{{#tag:ref|cf.''"But were I to make such a claim I would observe, as Richard Dawkins does, that to the extent that simultaneous and parallel changes are required to form a complex organ, to that extent does the hypothesis of random variation and natural selection become implausible. It is one thing to find a single needle in a haystack, quite another to find a dozen needles in a dozen haystacks at precisely the same time. Surely the [[burden of proof]] in such matters is not mine. I am not obliged to defend such mathematical trivialities as the proposition that as independent events are multiplied in number, their joint probability of occurrence plummets."'' (David Berlinski)<ref>{{cite web|title=A Scientific Scandal? David Berlinski & Critics|author=David Berlinski|publisher=Center for Science and Culture(originally: Commentary)|date=July 8, 2003|accessdate=May 15,2013|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/1509}}</ref>|group=note}}, you can work from any degree of simplicity to any degree of complexity.{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Logic of possibility]]|group=note}} All you need is enough time."''{{#tag:ref|(The God Delusion, p. 59)|group=note}} As this proposition remains out of reach of any scientific test that, as Pasteur pointed out, assumes the possibility to conduct experiments, this alien 'mechanism' can be effectively labeled as [[Evolution of the gaps]].  

*'''Mechanism:''' The necessity to use flask or cover one brick with another, so that the indentation is completely sealed, has been eased by using 'the little bit of luck' instead.  Evolutionary biologist and University of Oxford's Professor [[Dawkins]] explains: ''"And, of course, the puzzling thing is where does all this complexity come from? Where does all this information come from? It cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get something as complicated as a bird, and as well designed as a bird, or a human, or a hedgehog, coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out. Because to get from nothing, from no complexity, no information, to the extreme complexity of a modern living thing in one step of chance couldn’t possibly happen. That would be like throwing a dice a thousand times and getting six every single time. It’s out of the question. But if you allow a little bit of luck in any one generation, and then a little bit of luck in the next generation, little bit of luck in the next generation, by cumulatively adding this luck{{#tag:ref|In the [[Roman mythology]], good luck was represented by the goddess Felicitas. In his book ''the City of God'' (''De Civitate Dei''), [[Saint Augustine]] compares the [[Idolatry|idolatrous]] [[pagan]] worshipers of this goddess to mistaken primitive and stubborn people who would attempt to satiate their hunger by licking the bread painted on the wood.<ref>{{cite book |title=The City of Gog |author=Saint Augustine (Translated by Marcus Dods) |publisher=Christian Classics Ethereal Library |place=Grand Rapids, MI |chapter=Book IV/23.Concerning Felicity... |url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.pdf |quote=Was Felicity perhaps justly indignant, both because she was invited so late, and was invited not to honor, but rather to reproach, because along with her were worshiped Priapus, and Cloacina, and Fear and Dread, and Ague, and others which were not gods to be worshiped, but the crimes of the worshippers? ...the Capitol was built in such a way that these three also might be within it, yet with such obscure signs that even the most learned men could scarcely know this.  Surely, then, Jupiter himself would by no means despise Felicity, as he was himself despised by Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. ... But if Felicity is not a goddess, because, as is true, it is a gift of God, that god must be sought who has power to give it, and that hurtful multitude of false gods must be abandoned which the vain multitude of foolish men follows after, making gods to itself of the gifts of God, and offending Himself whose gifts they are by the stubbornness of a proud will. For he cannot be free from infelicity who worships Felicity as a goddess, and forsakes God, the giver of felicity; just as he cannot be free from hunger who licks a painted loaf of bread, and does not buy it of the man who has a real one.}}</ref>|group=note}} step by step by step by step{{#tag:ref|cf.''"But were I to make such a claim I would observe, as Richard Dawkins does, that to the extent that simultaneous and parallel changes are required to form a complex organ, to that extent does the hypothesis of random variation and natural selection become implausible. It is one thing to find a single needle in a haystack, quite another to find a dozen needles in a dozen haystacks at precisely the same time. Surely the [[burden of proof]] in such matters is not mine. I am not obliged to defend such mathematical trivialities as the proposition that as independent events are multiplied in number, their joint probability of occurrence plummets."'' (David Berlinski)<ref>{{cite web|title=A Scientific Scandal? David Berlinski & Critics|author=David Berlinski|publisher=Center for Science and Culture(originally: Commentary)|date=July 8, 2003|accessdate=May 15,2013|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/1509}}</ref>|group=note}}, you can work from any degree of simplicity to any degree of complexity.{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Logic of possibility]]|group=note}} All you need is enough time."''{{#tag:ref|(The God Delusion, p. 59)|group=note}} As this proposition remains out of reach of any scientific test that, as Pasteur pointed out, assumes the possibility to conduct experiments, this alien 'mechanism' can be effectively labeled as [[Evolution of the gaps]].  

*'''The time line:''' Van Helmont claimed that transformation of start-up ingredients into living organisms such as veritable scorpions takes place within a few days and 'wheat into mice' after approximately twenty-one days. On the other hand, though the contemporary theory of evolution does not specify an origin to life on Earth, some evolutionists and nearly all [[atheism|atheists]] believe that abiogenesis has occurred at least once approximately 3.5 billion years ago. They theorize that several molecules connected in a way that allowed them to be self-reproducing, and that these "living" beings later evolved into present organisms. As of yet, no self-reproducing molecules have been observed in early-Earth-like conditions.<ref>{{cite web |title= Evolution: Possible or Impossible? |author=James F. Coppedge |chapter=3.The Mystery of the Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins |url=http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c03.htm |accessdate=January 3, 2014 |quote=While it is true that opposites can be linked in the laboratory, what about that question if we consider the conditions that evolution assumes to have been existing before life began? ... After considering all the attempts, it is clear that unless chance could do it, there is at present no adequate answer from a naturalistic standpoint to explain how this left-handed condition began.  As a result, there is little evidence of any agreement or consensus among scientists regarding its source.  Oparin must presume that this stereoselectivity started without prior design. Any other belief would be inconsistent with his communist philosophy.  (Interestingly, that viewpoint – dialectical materialism – is not atheistic after all.  Professor Claude Tresmontant of the University of Paris has pointed out with unanswerable logic that communists are actually pantheists, worshiping matter-in-motion. ...The probability of the formation of one antipode or the other is therefore the same.  As the law of averages applies to chemical reactions the appearance of an excess of one antipode is very improbable, and, in fact, we never encounter it under the conditions of non-living nature and in laboratory syntheses . . . . In living organisms, on the contrary, the amino acids of which naturally occurring proteins are made always have the left-handed configuration. . . . This ability of protoplasm selectively to synthesize and accumulate one antipode alone is called the asymmetry of living material. It is a characteristic feature of all organisms without exception but is absent from inanimate nature. Pasteur pointed out this fact as follows: “This great character is, perhaps, the only sharp dividing line which we can draw at present between the chemistry of dead and living nature.”)}}</ref> Sometimes an vague explanation "All you need is enough time" is applied.{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Explanation in science]]|group=note}}

*'''The time line:''' Van Helmont claimed that transformation of start-up ingredients into living organisms such as veritable scorpions takes place within a few days and 'wheat into mice' after approximately twenty-one days. On the other hand, though the contemporary theory of evolution does not specify an origin to life on Earth, some evolutionists and nearly all [[atheism|atheists]] believe that abiogenesis has occurred at least once approximately 3.5 billion years ago. They theorize that several molecules connected in a way that allowed them to be self-reproducing, and that these "living" beings later evolved into present organisms. As of yet, no self-reproducing molecules have been observed in early-Earth-like conditions.<ref>{{cite web |title= Evolution: Possible or Impossible? |author=James F. Coppedge |chapter=3.The Mystery of the Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins |url=http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c03.htm |accessdate=January 3, 2014 |quote=While it is true that opposites can be linked in the laboratory, what about that question if we consider the conditions that evolution assumes to have been existing before life began? ... After considering all the attempts, it is clear that unless chance could do it, there is at present no adequate answer from a naturalistic standpoint to explain how this left-handed condition began.  As a result, there is little evidence of any agreement or consensus among scientists regarding its source.  Oparin must presume that this stereoselectivity started without prior design. Any other belief would be inconsistent with his communist philosophy.  (Interestingly, that viewpoint – dialectical materialism – is not atheistic after all.  Professor Claude Tresmontant of the University of Paris has pointed out with unanswerable logic that communists are actually pantheists, worshiping matter-in-motion. ...The probability of the formation of one antipode or the other is therefore the same.  As the law of averages applies to chemical reactions the appearance of an excess of one antipode is very improbable, and, in fact, we never encounter it under the conditions of non-living nature and in laboratory syntheses . . . . In living organisms, on the contrary, the amino acids of which naturally occurring proteins are made always have the left-handed configuration. . . . This ability of protoplasm selectively to synthesize and accumulate one antipode alone is called the asymmetry of living material. It is a characteristic feature of all organisms without exception but is absent from inanimate nature. Pasteur pointed out this fact as follows: “This great character is, perhaps, the only sharp dividing line which we can draw at present between the chemistry of dead and living nature.”)}}</ref> Sometimes an vague explanation "All you need is enough time" is applied.{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Explanation in science]] and [[Fog displacement]]|group=note}}

===Biblical Example===

===Biblical Example===