Bugeyed Creepy You use Miller and Urey as your defense of abiogenesis - and then you ask me to cite my sources on them? Do your own homework, friend. The data is there for anyone who wants to look for it. One thing you have not done, just as I predicted, is to show me how M & U, or anyone else, has ever seen life arise from inorganic matter. I would say I'm still waiting for that, but I'm not waiting because I know it will never happen. You see, I did my research.
"Unsubstantiated claims"? YOU are the one making unsubstantiated claims since you claim there is some evidence life comes from inorganic matter and there is zero of that. I claimed, based on observable, testable and repeatable data, that life comes from life, that Miller and Urey never got life from inorganic matter, and so on. You did nothing to present data to refute the SUBSTANTIATED claims I gave.
Now, I would not even respond to you anymore, however, in your last post it seems to me - right or wrong - that maybe you really have a heart to know what is true, even if it is outside your box. First, you are using the Appeal To Authority Logical Fallacy. That is, instead of trading data for data you show...faith...in what mainstream, orthodox, politically correct, viciously self protective Neo Darwinian academia and mainstream media are teaching about the fake news of the science world, evolutionism.
You just assume that all scientists believe in evolution. I bet you would say, as I would have said in the past, "Well! If evolution is not true, prove it and get a Nobel Prize!" Right?
Let's look at what some secular scientists have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism.
We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said....
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331.
.
Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing.
.
As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. Further, it causes a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc. But if you can give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS, do present that. Name the life forms and the evidence you have to show NS caused the transition from one type to another type.
.
Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution.
.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
.
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
.
On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator.
These Quotes Reveal The Credulity Of Evolutionists
.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator.
.
Now, dear, I have given you a lot of references. They are the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is out there. They can help you learn to think for yourself, to do critical thinking, to rise above faith based theories to examining real data. You can look or not. You can see or not.
It's up to you.
.
Again, my time is limited. Again, it's between you and the Father. However, I do suggest that you pray to Him to know the truth, whatever it is. Often, without the Holy Spirit, we cannot see even the obvious. That has been true for me and many, so often.
.
You probably no way believe we have an enemy called "the father of lies" and that he is "the prince" not King of kings "of this world." But we do. And he is real good at his job since the Fall.
.
Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.
