Oh, welcome to free republic. How nice that you found a crevo thread on your very first day.
>I'm going to pause to recap some earlier points. In post >49, I pointed out the definition of a theory, to show that >creationism doesn't qualify. You've pretty much ignored >that (your post 53 was just tapdancing). Your claim in >post 56 about rocks not springing to life is an absurdity. >Do you imagine that you're refuting something in the >theory of evolution? Until you seriously deal with some of >the issues raised here, you don't really deserve much more >attention. At least not from me.
I think the two theories are worthy of debate, which I thought may have been the point of the original post.
The obervation of varied and complex life forms is sufficient to form a hypothesis concerning its origin, even if that theory is based on prior knowledge or belief. The mathematical probability that life just spontaneously popped out of a chemical soup is so remote that the suggestion of a designer is not absurd. The reference to rocks (chemicals) was metaphorical. The idea that the simplest strand of DNA just assembled by chance collisions of molecules is like 1 in 10^84 - quite far fetched. That number by the way, came from an evolutionist whose name I can't remember.
Forgot one thing - theories can be established by inductive reasoning - deductive reasoning is not a requirement though it usually is easier.