Namely that evolutionists would rather entertain goo, an alien egg, a big bang theory.
Evolution doesn't have anything to say about the big bang theory. These are two different types of theories.
Where are you getting this goo and alien egg idea from? Are you building a strawman? Evolution explains the process of how we see all the diversity of life today. Abiogenesis is a separate study and is not a scientific theory yet.
entertaining the idea that there is intelligent design in everything around us. In DNA, in plants, in animals, in humans, etc. The more we learn about our surroundings, the more complicated we find it really is and it becomes harder and harder to believe that non-intelligence or matter simply composed everything and pieced everything together randomly.
You are committing the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity. "I don't understand how any of this is possible without an intelligent designer, therefore there is an intelligent designer". Do you know what else is complex? Snowflakes. We know that those are formed by natural processes.
The fact remains that evolution cannot be replicated in a laboratory and it's because of these aforementioned reasons...and logic for that matter.
This is not true. This is one of many experiments that have been observed in the lab.
"But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that
E. colinormally cannot use."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/
Experiments in nature have also been observed by moving 5 pairs of Italian wall lizards to a different island.
“Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst"
"Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants".
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
Finally, when did evolution become fact?
Well it's stood up to challenges for 150 years and the evidence has piled up to an overwhelming amount. It is one of the most substantiated theories in all of science.
Additionally, the reason for the zealousness of those like Richard Dawkins is because evolutionists/non-believers need to believe there is no God.
There is no requirement to reject a God to work in any field of science. In fact, there are many scientists that are Christian. Francis Collins is a devout Christian and he is a very well respected geneticist for the work he did on the human genome project. You should read his book "The Language of God" before you make assumptions that anyone who accepts evolution is automatically a non-believer. There are many Christians on this board who accept evolution as well.
I don't "Need to believe there is no God". I don't believe in God because I don't find the claims convincing. I would change my mind if verifiable and testable evidence was able to show that I was wrong.
With no God, who then can stand in the way of what you think is right or wrong?
Nobody. I decide what is moral or immoral. I have empathy and am able to recognize how my actions impact the people around me.
Who is God to tell you what is right or wrong? Am I right? So to answer your question, the overzealous belief in the Theory of evolution has to be dogmatic.
Evolution has nothing to do with morality. It's a science. Evolution is not a belief either. I don't say "I believe in evolution" I say "I understand evolution".
But again, mutations are factually destructive. They're not PRODUCTIVE.
What about the genetic mutation that people in Tibet have that allows them thrive in high altitudes and not succumb to altitude sickness? Is that destructive?
What about a genetic mutation of sickle cell anemia? It sounds destructive right? Well it also is resistant to malaria.
What about a genetic mutation seen in 20% of Causation populations that have a genetic mutation in gene ccr5 called delta 32 that makes them more resistant to HIV? 1% of Caucasians have two copies of this mutation, essentially making them immune to the HIV virus. Is this destructive?
In fact, 99.99% of mutations are destructive (I can't say 100% because that's just not science).
Most mutations are neutral. Negative mutations are eliminated from the gene pool by natural selection and those with the mutations best suited for the environment survive and reproduce.
The answer is God never intended for animals to kill each other or for any death to happen when He created the world in Genesis.
If God exists and is omniscient, then he would already know what the results of a creation would be beforehand. If he didn't intend for death to happen but knew it would anyway and still went forward with it, then he is responsible for it.
