Every time a scientist creates something in the lab that supports evolution, creationists consistently call foul, claiming the mere involvement of intelligent people voids the results, since they were the result of an intelligence. Yet then they turn around and claim that they'll believe us if we create a life form from scratch in the lab. Nina May's comment is typical:
"So where did it begin, and if it was as simple as a big bang, then recreate it. If man really did evolve from an ameba [sic]. . . a simple one celled creature, then certainly he should be able to make a man from one today. With all the science, the technology, the internet, and the huge crowd of followers desperate to prove there is no God and that man, in his total stupidity, really thinks he can become one, then prove it."
Never mind the idiocy of the argument that man should be able to recreate anything nature can do. Can you say "hurricane"? Earthquake? Please.
But really, would you guys please get together and tell us which it is? Half of you are telling us that any lab experiment is tainted with intelligence, the other half are demanding we get into the lab and prove our point. Which is it?