There are several issues--here's one: "Evolution doesn't expect to find half-formed creatures or whatever you're talking about." Yet it's been said it takes only 400,000 years to form a simple eye. No fossils with half-formed simple eye sockets, etc., etc., etc., etc.
And yet--not one skeptic on this forum addressed any of these properly in context.
And of course, it's not a Gish Gallop. There are numerous issues with abiogenesis theory--which is why a century of lab experiments have almost nothing of substance to tell us.
I understand, abiogenesis has been proven so far as falsified since attempts to test it/duplicate it in a controlled environment show no progress.
It would be more correct to say it is a faith-based claim (atheist faith looking for an alternative to creation) than to say it is a fact or even a...
I apologize for the confusion. A better way might be "there are no transitory fossils showing half-formed/developing structures, and no modern species likewise".
I hope you are not implying that I'm a child of Satan. I love Jesus and confess Him as Christ, God and Savior.
I find that both testaments testifying of the triunity of God. That is the simple reason why most biblical denominations and Bible-affirming groups disagree with you.
I think the best...
Thanks for the correction. Millions of atheists--if asked on the street as individuals--who is known as the Prince of Peace--would say "Jesus Christ" and not "King Hezekiah". The prophecy is fulfilled.
No, speciation is observed in nature and in the fossil record, what I'm calling "rapid speciation", for example, could be the many dogs that are seen in the modern era derived from only several breeds or dogs in nature.
"Macroevolution" does not refer to speciation but to creations giving birth...
There are reasons the conjectured abiogenesis doesn't happen again, I agree. There are reasons (biblical also) why all fossil and modern species are finished, complete. There is further a reason(s) why abiogeneis is non-duplicable in a lab.
Abiogenesis, neither observed nor duplicable, is...
I understand, as soon as you move from allegory to literalism or "God's Word flexes" to "God's Word is immutable"--that is, as you accept Tanakh as inspired truth--you would naturally see Jesus as Messiah.
Orbiting spheres are observed in nature--for example, the Moon. Centrifigul and centripedal forces, and gravity from rotating man-made objects in space, etc. is duplicable.
Abiogenesis is neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.
"Those who are most wrong are usually the ones who claim they are being dismissed" is not a proof of anything--it's merely another false statement of logic/attack on my person.
I didn't say "observation supports creationism over naturalistic evolution". I said they are both faith-based claims, neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.