Explain 3 problems with a naturalistic explaination for life.

The bacterial flagellum proves intelligent disign without a doubt because it is extremely intricate. It has many complex parts to it that cannot be explained by naturalism. There is no way that those parts came from premodial goop. They work in a specific order and if one thing goes wrong it all goes down the drain. Do you really think that just appeared or evolved from some goop in the middle of no where? It's not possible.
DNA is another major issue with naturalism. The complex parts of DNA could not have come from anything other than intelligent desisgn. It controls the organism its in and determins the many traits of the body. No one looks exactly alike. What's the likelyhood that something that evolved would not have a fingerprint that matched another or that not one tongue would be exactly the same? Its impossible. If there is one genetic mutation the whole thing goes down hill. Everything has a purpose and was created.
Okay, the most obvious of these is Mt. Rushmore. There is no way in heck that those were formed by the wind and rain over time. They were created. They are faces. It is something we can recognize. Just like every other thing in this world, it was created. Someone spent their time created it because thats what they were passionate. The likelyhood that those came from nowhere is like someone putting all the scabble letters in a bad dumping them out and it spelling out the simple line from Shakespear's "Hamlet" - "to be or not to be; that is the question". Its practically impossible.

UTT blog #3

Two parts for you to deal with. Mark tells you that ethics should be based on economics. Justify this, from a marxist perspective, in other words,"the ends justifing the means." Then, from a christian perspective, why can't this be true or right? If you can think of a real life example of this, great, bonus points.

A lot of times the ends DOES justify the means... example, World War II. tons of people died, we bombed Hiroshima BUT if we hadn't done that Russia would have taken over Japan with China's help and they would be a communist country... THEN they would have attacked us and we would also most likely be a communist country...

An example of when is doesn't is like getting a good grade on a test... but you cheated your way there... that end does NOT justify the means. Therefore, I think that statement is somewhat loaded. It depends on the situation.

UTT blog #2

Why can't Karma be the universal standard of right and wrong? Watch the video and explain to Nathan, what's wrong with Karma?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56hfjVi6MnQ

Karma cannot be the universal standard of right and wrong because....
Yes, things that we do effect future things, like if you murder someone you will go to prison. But the issue with Karma is that everything we mentally do does NOT effect the future necessarily. I mean come on do you really think if i step on a spider that a boulder is going to fall on me? Karma is wrong. It is not true. We see this in everyday situations where we do things that have no effect on the future.

UTT blog #1

How would you respond to the suggestion that there are no absolute moral standards that apply to everyone?

First off, the definition of moral absolutes is the belief that an absolute ethical standard exists for all individuals regardless or era or culture; also known as the eternal moral order.
If you say there are no absolutes... is that an absolute? FAIL. You just tried to prove there are not absolutes with your own absolute.
If there are no moral absolutes then is it okay to murder someone? I'm sure if you ask anyone that they will say no its not okay. Unless of course they have major issues.... So my conclusion is that there is definitely a moral standard whether people want to believe it or not...