Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Duke Guilmon]

These scientists were not there, they are trying to piece together a picture, hardly evidence.

Tell me this where we there to see a sperm whale eat a giant squid? Were we there to see dust mites mate? Answer is no? But how do we know it happens? Evidence! Evidence is over eye witness testimony.


Just because organisms have DNA with common genetic materials doesn't prove all species have a common ancestor.
Actually it does. Why? Because it was predicted by science and denied by you guys for years. Now all of a sudden that proves creationism and not evolution, despite the fact you guys tried disproving it for years and failed, then took our evidence and claimed it as your own. So it doesn't prove god because it was never a prediction of you guys, in fact it goes to show creationism has no evidence and just takes evidence it likes without doing any work. Which is anti-scientific


Where did the RNA come from?

I don't know. That must mean the muslims were right. Or the hindus.

What if God created the RNA and DNA in all living things?

Which one? Prove at least a deistic god exist first before you make a bold claim.

THis in not entirely true. http://www.icr.org/article/historic-prim...dy-yields/

Oh I see. There was an intellegent agent behind it. There was an intellegent agent behind the evolution of dog breeds. Does that mean evolution can't happen without humans? Answer is no, look up ring species and see what I mean.


Two views of RNA replication in the early RNA world

A knotty problem...
All the evidence gathered thus far has revealed a great deal about the origin of life, but there is still much to learn. Because of the enormous length of time and the tremendous change that has occurred since then, much of the evidence relevant to origins has been lost and we may never know certain details. Nevertheless, many of the gaps in our knowledge (gaps that seemed unbridgeable just 20 years ago) have been filled in recent years, and continuing research and new technologies hold the promise of more insights. As Ellington puts it, "Origins is a huge knotty problem — but that doesn't mean it's an insoluble one."

It remains a knotty problem, and this whole article doesn't disprove my argument.
All of science disproves your argument. Your arguments are really just copying us. Especially in biology.

He has, He sent His prophets and His Son and man rejected their message and killed them. What more do you want Him to do?

For him to exist first.