goozlefotz wrote:

The worst mistake creationists make is to equate complaints about the
theory of evolution with support for creationism. It seems that their
view is to discredit any scientific hypotheses and TADA! what is left
is creation. A crummy way at best to support a theory!

It's all they've got. Grin.



wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
life.

So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different"!

Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
facts.