Replies

Your inane questioning as to why gravity exists caused me to consider an interesting question. Assuming macro-evolution and universal descent are true, an assumption I obviously disagree with, please explain what purpose is served and why would single cell organisms have a need to become more complex? Couldn't they simply continue to exist as single-celled organisms? If there was some sort of environmental condition existing that made it impossible for single-celled organisms to survive, why do they still exist? If survival did not require more than single-celled organisms, evolution serves no purpose.

I assume you go along with the relatively recent claim that evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. Well, couldn't what/whoever that caused/created single-celled organisms also create/design organisms that are far more complex; including man?

After all, isn't it the evolutionist position that most life forms have a great deal in common. If there is so much in common, why couldn't what/whoever created single-celled life design/create man and everything in between that evolutionists claim happened over vast quantities of time.

As any rational person can see, this whole business about evolution having nothing to say about the origin of life creates its own problems for evolutionists.

Your inane questioning as to why gravity exists

Nice cop-out. Rather than admit that you can't explain what causes gravity, you simply call the question "inane".

Assuming macro-evolution and universal descent are true, an assumption I obviously disagree with, please explain what purpose is served and why would single cell organisms have a need to become more complex?

Who said that it was a "need" or done for a "purpose"? It happens because it is what inevitably happens with imperfect self-replicators when replication success is dependent upon inheritable traits working with the environment?

If there was some sort of environmental condition existing that made it impossible for single-celled organisms to survive, why do they still exist?

Who said that there was an environmental condition which made it impossible for single-celled organisms to survive?

If survival did not require more than single-celled organisms, evolution serves no purpose.

It's not that "more than single-celled organisms" were "required", it's that there were environments where multicellular organisms (originally single-cell organisms working as a collective) were able to thrive.

I assume you go along with the relatively recent claim that evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life.

Yes.

Well, couldn't what/whoever that caused/created single-celled organisms also create/design organisms that are far more complex; including man?

According to evolution the only thing that could have led to such things would have been environmental selection pressures leading to increased success of multicellular life forms. The cause of such environmental conditions isn't addressed by evolution, so it's "possible" that a divine agent could have been the cause for that and for the ultimate origin of life. Such speculation is outside of the scope of scientific inquiry, however.

After all, isn't it the evolutionist position that most life forms have a great deal in common.

Actually, that's an observation of biology. You don't have to accept the theory of evolution to notice it.

If there is so much in common, why couldn't what/whoever created single-celled life design/create man and everything in between that evolutionists claim happened over vast quantities of time.

Given available evidence, evolution is the best explanation for species diversity. If you wish to push forth a different explanation then please present evidence for your explanation, rather than asserting that it is valid simply because it "might" be true.

As any rational person can see, this whole business about evolution having nothing to say about the origin of life creates its own problems for evolutionists.

You've failed to demonstrate any alleged problems.