But, there is NO evidence for abiogenesis; and evidence for evolution is fading very fast. Most of what amounts to evidence these days is speculation and story-telling.
And, you have apparently have aligned yourself with those who define "science" as materialistic, defining away anything that is not material. So, where do you get that definition of "science?"
Can you give the molecular structure of an idea? Can you demonstrate, scientifically, that the immaterial does not exist, and is therefore unworthy of investigation? The problem with your definition of science is that it is unprovable. As is evolution. Evolution is philosophical model that you can't reproduce, test, falsify...evolution is not science.
The Creation-model is also philosophical. But, for a truth claim to be true (the category for both the evolution model and the creation model) it must comport with reality. And, although I am sure you will object loudly, the creation model comports with reality far better than does evolution.
And, just in case you hadn't thought about it, creation scientists are every bit as scientific as evolutionist scientist. But, evolutionist have tried to eliminate them from the discussion by defining what they do as religion. Well, guess what? We look at the same evidence you look at, we examine the same fossils you examine, we observe the same solar system that you observer, and arrive at conclusions based on our presuppositions just like you do. Apparently, and I could be wrong, your presupposition is that there is nothing supernatural that is scientifically ineteresting. We approach it from just the opposite. And, we don't, as far too many evolutionists like to say, dismiss everything with a faith statement, or a God did it, so let's not bother doing any further research. Just the oppostite, again, is the case. We see order and design in the universe, and we seek to understand that order and design. We seek to harness the complexity for the good of our fellow man.
I will not provide any links to further elborate my position, because you would probably either not read them, or pass them off as further proof of our "escape from reality" bit. So with that, good night. Hope your weekend is wonderful. Enjoy that great outdoors that our Creator has provided you.
And, just in case you hadn't thought about it, creation scientists are every bit as scientific as evolutionist scientist. But, evolutionist have tried to eliminate them from the discussion by defining what they do as religion. Well, guess what? We look at the same evidence you look at, we examine the same fossils you examine, we observe the same solar system that you observe, and arrive at conclusions based on our presuppositions just like you do.
Speaking of good Research.
Fregards, MM
And the ever popular 'exact same mutations found in species thought to be related on other grounds', such as my favorite, the *exact same* mutation in people, chimps, gorillas, et al, that prevents synthesis of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)
Exact same mistake, found in species thought to be related. I inherited my mutation form my parents, as did you, as do the (Other) great apes. Isn't the simplest explanation for this fact the hypothesis that the mutation occured once, in a common ancestor, and was inherited by us and the (Other) great apes?
Here's a discussion of this, from a Christian point of view The ape that bears God's image
An essay well worth reading, includes lots of concrete examples.