[AntiGuv]

Remember, your previous argument was that just because something has never been observed to have happend doesn't mean that it can't. I was not referring to evolution/natural selection in that instance, but rather to abiogenesis.

[Dimensio]

I was not referring to evolution/natural selection in that instance, but rather to abiogenesis.

Keep in mind that abiogenesis is part of evolution. I know that anyone who actually has studied evolution and understands the theory will tell you that abiogenesis is a seperate matter, but gore3000 has declared that evolution depends on abiogenesis and he must be right, since he sees fit to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

[montanus]

Remember, your previous argument was that just because something has never been observed to have happend doesn't mean that it can't.

I was not referring to evolution/natural selection in that instance, but rather to abiogenesis.

Ah, so we switched topics between responses without indictating it?

Even so, it doesn't matter: Macroevolution has never been scientifically observed either, and Creationist do not deny natural selection. (Well, I guess some will have a knee jerk reaction and deny any and all parts of the evolutionary argument- but it's not necessary to do so to argue for Creationism.)