too much details in nature to be relied on by mutations and chance.
an understanding of the absolute limitations of the science, the inherent biases of the scientists and the fallible nature and absurd assumptions of those producing the science helps too.This is an ignorant statement. Random mutation easily accounts for the variety of species we see in nature when guided by natural selection. I know this contradicts stories of gardens, talking snakes, arcs, and omnipotent designers...but an understanding of the science involved provides a far more reasonable solution.
an understanding of the absolute limitations of the science, the inherent biases of the scientists and the fallible nature and absurd assumptions of those producing the science helps too.
This is an ignorant statement. Random mutation easily accounts for the variety of species we see in nature when guided by natural selection. I know this contradicts stories of gardens, talking snakes, arcs, and omnipotent designers...but an understanding of the science involved provides a far more reasonable solution.
but for every THEORY that supports evolution, creation science shoots it down.
let me ask you a question. when a lake freezes, why does the ice float, why doesn't the ice sink?
I would love for you to list some of these absurd assumptions and obvious biases.
And if we are talking the merits of limitations, it isn't even a game compared with intelligent design, or creationism.
you still have the enormous problem of organic matter forming from the inorganic. I know you believe there is a simple answer here about life forming in electrically charged puddles, but it's lame as can be.I would love for you to list some of these absurd assumptions and obvious biases.
And if we are talking the merits of limitations, it isn't even a game compared with intelligent design, or creationism.
you still have the enormous problem of organic matter forming from the inorganic. I know you believe there is a simple answer here about life forming in electrically charged puddles, but it's lame as can be.
Spontaneous life is simply a problem that can't be explained or assumed away. From there to a brain with a conscience is simply impossible.
Not worth debate, as you've proven to be as closed minded about this as those you claim to debate, so I'm done with it.
I'm not confusing anything. Micro and macro evolution are reasonable to me, until clowns start tossing it about as evidence of lack of a creator, which it in no way supports.Evolution addresses none of that. And your right, it is not worth the debate if you are going to continue to confuse evolution with abiogensis.
I'm not confusing anything. Micro and macro evolution are reasonable to me, until clowns start tossing it about as evidence of lack of a creator, which it in no way supports.
it closes the door on nothing regarding life being a single act of creation. Life started somewhere and evolution doesn't explain it.You absolutely are confusing the two when your "obvious biases" and "ridiculous assumptions" consist of pointing out things that evolutionary theory doesn't even mean to address.
And I don't think evolutionary theory is evidence that a creator doesn't exist, but it does make it possible to believe that one isn't needed. There is a difference.
It absolutely closes the door on life as we see it being the result of a single act of creation or design.