This is a complete paragraph of assertion and opinion without any evidence to support it. Why do you accept that the universe and it's parameters are evidence of God but the rest isn't? How did you arrive at the conclusion that the universe and it fine tuned parameters are the result of God's creation but the planet and life on earth isn't? This is inconsistent with your own view let alone with Christian Theology.
No, we haven't really done anything of merit now anymore than all those years ago when the first experiments were done.
Except that it doesn't happen, hasn't been shown possible and even if it did would not eliminate the need of God to set the whole thing rolling as you have yourself accepted.
Nice story but there is no evidence to support your position.
Except of course that there is no evidence for that happening.
And there is no need to explain reproducing life that is complex, because that works the same way as the lock, but even further, there was no goal other then towards something akin to humans, the path, the direction it could take was nearly infinite, for every complex organ, or feature that evolved, there were near infantly complex versions that could have evolved, but there is still some limitations, such as we see in convergent evolution, we see the same form evolving over and over because it's the most efficient, and something we see in many programs that use evolution algorythems to create simulated life. Very complex things will form using processes even less complex then evolution and DNA.
More assertions and no evidence to provide to support it. The evidence shows that complexity was there right there in the beginning.[/QUOTE]
Because it comes down to where is god needed, we know he's not needed for planetary formation, galaxy formation, solar system formation and so on, because we have all the evidence of these things happening naturally, we can see them happening naturally, so why asert something we don't need? And I'm not making assertions here, we have the methods and know why these things could happen without god being the ultimate OCD micromanager. And my theology is to go where the evidence leads, I believe in god because I've had the interactions and seen things that lead me to believe in him, I believe in Jesus because it fits the evidence to me.
But when we see everthing after the big bang there is no need to insert god, your lack of understanding of how evolution works and how it produces what we see today isn't evidence it didn't happen. You need provide evidence of why god is needed, or prove god did it, just saying, "He could have." doesn't show anything.
If your wrong about evolutiuon and god micromanaging and being needed how would you know? Your just inserting him because you don't understand how it could happen, well sorry science does know, and has the means for it to happen, we've been studying this for decades, we have the fossils, we have the genetics, we have the ERV's, we have the homology and so on, everything independantly fits evolution, even without genetics we have strong evidence. The evidence of god not being required is on our side,show your methodology for determining he was needed.
Wrong, see your lack of knowledge in a subject isn't evidence against it. we've found amino acids in commets, we've done experiments that show that the type of handed amino acids we use in our DNA are favoured, we've done multiple experiments that show many of the steps for abiogensesis, we working on the rest, but what we have is more then enough to point towards evolution and it happening. go research the subject, science doesn't sit there and just say, well we have a guess thats all thats needed it continues to learn and gather more Data.
And god could have started Abiogenesis but the question isn't did he, the question is he needed, any more then is he needed for evolution. But lets say he started abiogenesis, we know he's not needed for evolution because we know and understand the process by wich it goes from goo to you and everything else on this planet. You can argue on abiogensis, though I say it's too early, saying we havn't provided evidence for it yet, isn't evidence against it s we have come a far way.
Dissmissivly ignoring evidence isn't a story. these are facts, if abiogensis happened this is HOW it happened, no story, just the facts, because this is how chemistry works, no assertion needed as abiogensis be no diferent from hydrogen and oxygen turning into water, just more complex, but just as the right conditions form water, the right conditions would form life.
You keep saying over and over no evidence like a Mantra, why is it that over 95% of scientists disagree with you and think there is evidence, many of them Christians.
