[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
@smh. The argument put forth by the evolutionist is conjecture. He can’t duplicate abiogenesis even under the most favorable of lab conditions, he cannot create energy from nothing, there is no fossil record explaining the gaps between single-celled organisms and invertebrates, the odds that repeated mutations repeatedly helped, not harmed, life forms is so high against that it is not calculable, the switch from efficient asexual to the inefficient sexual reproduction method is unlikely, and a plethora of other problems that cannot be resolved scientifically. He could drone on for hours without ever answering these important questions.
There is ample research and papers written supporting the idea of intelligent design all easily found online. Your claim the Creationist has only the Bible to reference indicates ignorance or disingenuousness. Are you really ignorant of the Nye-Ham debate? Or of Google?
The difference between the evolutionist and the Creationist is that one believes impossible things happened repeatedly by random chance in the face of infinitesimally overwhelming odds and the other believes it happened by design. Neither one can scientifically reproduce what they believe.[/quote]
This is a trial. That we don’t have video evidence of the murder, and can’t recreate it, does not mean that we can’t weigh evidence and attempt to adjudicate. If you disagree, then please say so, because that concludes the proceedings.
Now, if you read my last post carefully, you will see that I am well aware of the incompleteness of the theory of evolution (as I said, we have argued the points here many times before). What you should become aware of is the fact that incompleteness is not incorrectness. Surely you are aware that the evolutionist has a case to make. I am not talking about complete proof, I am talking about a case.
What I am asking you – and you are doing a valiant job of pretending not to notice the question – is what case you have to make. It is important here, as it is always and everywhere, to think specifically. The direct and specific Biblical competitor to abiogenesis/evolution is Genesis 2:7, the account of man’s origin. What evidence, external to the passage itself, gives us the slightest reason to believe that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” What evidence suggests that, of all the competing accounts of man’s origin, this is the one to which the rational observer is compelled to subscribe?
Again, the evolutionist makes his case, offers the specific evidence which directly supports (note, again, the absence of the word “proves”) his hypothesis (and please don’t suggest to me that he would stand there in silence; we all know what he would say, and we have all been through the debates a hundred times before). And now it’s your turn. You make a claim: “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” And now you tell us your specific, direct evidence. What is it?[/quote]
I just told you there is no specific direct reproducible evidence supporting either position. I base my disagreement with evolution on the fact that it relies on numerous repeated acts of random chance with odds so unlikely that many cannot even be calculated. How do you ignore the lack of any transitory fossil records, the Cambrian explosion, the lack of new animal body forms since the Cambrian explosion, genetic coding, biogenesis, the circular reasoning of fossil dating, C-14 found in coal and diamonds, and a host of others? How did fully functional respiratory systems appear suddenly? The odds that just our galaxy was accidentally formed in such a way that it made it possible for life to “accidentally” form on Earth is alone evidence for Creation.