Replies

" 1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, "

"Nothing to do with evolution. Next!"

I always love this one. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of the first living cell, yet they think it has no relevance to evolution. So what do they think? As far as I can tell, they must believe that ID was involved in the origin of the first living cell, but after that point ID vanished from the face of the earth. Sorry, but that's just not very plausible.

Evolutionists are masters at distorting the facts on this one. When mathematicians prove that the first living cell couldn't have fallen together by random chance, the evolutionists distort that to mean simply that "we don't yet know how it happened." Yes, that's true: we really *don't* know how it happened, but that's not the point. The point is that we know virtually for sure how it *didn't* happen: without intelligent design.

"I always love this one. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of the first living cell, yet they think it has no relevance to evolution."

I always love this; creationists can't grap that evolution makes no claims as to the origins of life.

"When mathematicians prove that the first living cell couldn't have fallen together by random chance, the evolutionists distort that to mean simply that "we don't yet know how it happened.""

Mathematicians have proved no such thing. For one thing, the theory that deals with the origins of life, abiogenesis, does not work with *random chance*. But more to the point, evolution deals with the change among organisms that are imperfectly self replicating. Until such organisms exist, evolution has nothing to say. Like every other scientific theory, it has a delimited field of inquiry. The origins of life are outside that field.

"The point is that we know virtually for sure how it *didn't* happen: without intelligent design. "

Only if ID is defined as anything and everything.