From: user6340@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   JTEM  posted:   
   > 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,   
      
   There are huge gaps in the "evidence" that have to   
   be filled by imaginative guesses.   
   >   
   > you just   
   > don't like you, or so you claim. You mirror the fake   
   > atheists when they reject evidence for God.   
      
   There is so much evidence for God, that a person has   
   to be willfully blind to not see it.   
   >   
   > NOTE:  "Evidence" is not an alternative spelling for   
   > proof.   
      
   True.   
   >   
   > We can start with fossils. They stretch back billions   
   > of years. But moths don't. Cats don't. Lizards don't.   
      
   There is nothing in the fossil record that shows one   
   species turning into another species.   
   >   
   > Anyway, we have a fossil record which, though extremely   
   > far from complete, does show a picture of increasing   
   > complexity.   
      
   Like the Cambrian Explosion?   
   >   
   > And that is evidence. So unless by   
   > "Evidence" you mean "Proof," there's plenty of fossil   
   > evidence.   
      
   The Cambrian Explosion produced a lot of new life forms   
   in far too quick a time to be explained by evolution.   
   Apparently they're coming up with the usual excuses   
   to try to make it all fit. But it's not a good fit.   
   >   
   > There's also DNA evidence, which strongly supports the   
   > Common Descent of life.   
      
   DNA is far too complex to have evolved all by itself.   
   It's literally a machine, and it's capable of doing   
   things that indicate a Creator must have created it.   
   I simply cannot believe it happened all by itself.   
   >   
   > > 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.   
      
   What's their explanation?   
   >   
   > >> 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.   
      
   They've tried to duplicate the conditions of the   
   chaotic world in which they claim life popped into   
   existence all by itself. They can't do it because   
   it didn't happen all by itself. There had to be a   
   Creator who created life, and everything else.   
   >   
   > >> 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.   
      
   How did it survive the ride through space?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)