Yes. That's what i was trying to say to you, but when you hear evolve, you automatically assume animals.
Especially when you used the phrase "Darwinian theory" directly above it. Darwin was a biologist, and anything even remotely considered "Darwinian" would be towards biological evolution.
You've really got only yourself to blame for the persistant confusion.
Most, or some? I have a Church full of Creationists, who believe in the 6-day creation.
Most intelligent design folks. Intelligent Design is
not 7-day Creation. Completely different kettle of fish.
Evidence means something that can convince a rational person, like a judge. If i went to court to sue someone over "something, sometime, somehow," with no forensic evidence, i'll be laughed at. Abiogenesis is a myth, but a myth that evolution leans on
A myth, really? A lot of biochemists are putting in a lot of work on it. Try
here, where Talk.Origins has a Post of the Month on it, or better yet
here for Tim Thompson's offhand list of 6 papers and abstracts, or just peruse the Journal of Molecular Biology.
That's one alternative to "darwin did it."
Darwin didn't do anything. He's somewhat dead, remember? Natural selection does it. Because of that, we know the sorts of things to do to minimize it, to deal with it. And even better, we can stick their DNA under the microscope and see it happen.
"God did it" doesn't really explain anything, does it?
You have to admit, it was a lame reply.
OK, i understand the Hubble flow. But we are taking the measurements for Gospel truth.
No we're not. We're taking the measurements as accurate within the tolerances of the measuring devices, and further more, measuring it multiple different ways by different methods and different people.
If you want to say they're wrong, please tell me how. Astronomers would love to know.
It's impossible to measure accurately from our physical standpoint in the universe.So the distance to a galaxy and the galaxy's speed relative to us is very hard to measure.
Really? Do tell. How so?
But even if the galaries are moving apart, we don't know if they are moving away from a certain spot, an "epicenter."
Oh, bollucks to that. That's easy to show. Think about it. If every part of the universe is visibly moving away from every other part of the universe, that's pretty much it right there.
We're both headstrong and stubborn. We can't reach a conclusion on this point. I just believe strongly that evolution without aboigenesis and the BB wouldn't survive.
That's nice. Care to explain why, how, or even give a scenario for it? You know "i think this would happen, and then this, and then this?"
Because, frankly, not only is it an unsupported claim, but rather a ridiculous one.
By these definitions, mathematics is a branch of the tree of science. You can't do anything with chemistry or physics without, at least, basic math. Wouldn't you agree, Morat?
You couldn't do it without a common language, either. Mathematics isn't the study of anything but itself, Alex. No study, no experimentation, no observation. Math is a symbolic language used to convey relationships.
It's darn useful, and very powerful. But it's not science anymore than logic is.
You decide. Both, if you can.
Why? It's your question.
The laws were "set." By whom?
Why does there need to be a who?
You can't believe that they originated by themselves! I think you are pretending that the BB explains this and that, but don't even think so yourself. Is that true?
Why not? What's to stop them? Our physical laws might be the only possible set. There might be an infinite number of sets, and an infinite number of universes. *Shrug*. Why do you presuppose God?
Well, the Bible doesn't say that, but gravity isn't like light, for example. Light, i heard, is a tiny particle travelling in a wave. Gravity is a force between matter. Things are always attracted to each other, not just to the earth. 
