From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/17/25 7:35 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:   
      
   > Actually, I was looking for evidence -- such as the   
   > evidence you say "fundies" ignore when looking at the   
   > evidence for evolution. I do realize there is micro-   
   > evolution, in which minor changes happen within a   
   > species. But there is no conclusive evidence that   
   > any species has ever changed into another species.   
      
   Well there is tons & tons & tons of evidence, you just   
   don't like you, or so you claim. You mirror the fake   
   atheists when they reject evidence for God.   
      
   NOTE:  "Evidence" is not an alternative spelling for   
   proof.   
      
   We can start with fossils. They stretch back billions   
   of years. But moths don't. Cats don't. Lizards don't.   
      
   Anyway, we have a fossil record which, though extremely   
   far from complete, does show a picture of increasing   
   complexity. And that is evidence. So unless by   
   "Evidence" you mean "Proof," there's plenty of fossil   
   evidence.   
      
   There's also DNA evidence, which strongly supports the   
   Common Descent of life.   
      
   > It's possible that the body of captive body of water   
   > might have been the scene of a flood at some point   
   > in the past, and fish and other lifeforms wound up   
   > in that body of water before the flood receded.   
      
   People who talk about/investigate this stuff don't seem   
   to think so, in a lot of cases.   
      
   >> People have been trying to reproduce abiogenesis under   
   >> laboratory conditions for more than 60 years, and failing   
   >> every single time. But the believe persists despite the   
   >> lack of evidence.   
   >   
   > Yes, I have made that point that even under laboratory   
   > conditions, scientists couldn't create life -- yet they   
   > want us to believe that in a chaotic world, a single   
   > cell just popped into being alive, and somehow managed   
   > to survive and gradually produce all the complicated   
   > lifeforms that have ever existed. It does seem sort   
   > of silly if you really stop and think about it.   
      
   The real problem is not their failure. It's that success   
   would be proof positive of creation. That, it would be   
   proof that AN INTELLIGENCE can BY DESIGN bring life into   
   existence. It would not nor could not prove that abiogenesis   
   ever happened.   
      
   >> I tend to favor Panspermia as the origins of life on earth.   
   >> Just because if we assume that life can spontaneously form,   
   >> it had to happen many times before it had a chance to happen   
   >> here.   
   >>   
   >> Mars cooled quicker, developed the conditions we believe   
   >> where life took root, earlier than the earth. So if abiogenesis   
   >> is possible it likely happened there, and if life began in   
   >> space as a consequence of the Big Bang, it took root & grew   
   >> on Mars before it could here. So Mars is the likely source of   
   >> life on earth... it had hundreds of millions of years to   
   >> evolve, most likely, before an asteroid impact or super   
   >> volcano ejected life into space, only to fall here.   
      
   > Life still had to start somewhere.   
      
   Yes. And it had countless opportunities to start elsewhere BEFORE   
   it had an opportunity here. So I conclude that it most likely   
   arrived here from elsewhere.   
      
      
      
   --   
   https://jtem.tumblr.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)