Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Revelation777]

Of course technology has improved in 50 years for a computer hasn't morphed into an airplane.

Cute little jab, but planes don't reproduce with variation, so you're completely off the mark there.

My point, however, was this: why on earth would you think that biology hasn't advanced in fifty years too?

Edited to add: Oh, but since you want to talk about airplanes and evolution, here's a scientific paper on the use of evolutionary algorithms in aeronautics. Something that simply wouldn't be possible if evolution did not work.

You kinda picked a really bad example, there.

I don't see how this proves anything?

---

What if there is dishonesty among atheists?

There is undoubted dishonesty amongst atheists. But Christianity based creationism is the essence of dishonesty and there can't be anything but dishonesty amongst creationists like you.

If someone believes God is the Creator, how is that being dishonest? To be it is being genuine.

---

Argument #2: Evolution of Species

The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” He goes on to say, “The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.

My argument is not that change doesn’t take place within species over time. My argument is that no matter how long the time frame, there is no substantial scientific evidence that a microbe has evolved into a human being. Additionally, there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell regardless of time and/or chance.

Even if that were true (which it isn't), that wouldn't be any evidence of a God that creates life using magic.

I don't call it magic, I call it power.