People put water into freezers to make ice, therefore water freezes because someone makes it freeze.<quoted text>1....if it proved that no designer was necessary, then no scientist would be necessary.
When two hydrogen atoms meet an oxygen atom, they EVOLVE to become water? Chemistry is evolution. That's what you're saying. Chemistry = Evolution.2....abiogenesis and human from non-human evolution are absolutely related. Chemicals, or the building blocks of life, had to somehow mix, with what ever other ingredients are necessary, to change into...or EVOLVE into life.[
Just like the theory of gravity doesn't explain the origin of mass, therefore the theory of gravity is invalid. Biodiversity isn't the same as life arising, any more than gravity is the same as matter arising. While one might depend on the other occurring, that doesn't mean the theory of one must explain the other. Otherwise, you've got a bigger problem with science than simply the biological sciences. It's all of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, cosmology...pretty much anything other than simply making shit up.You guys try to keep it seperated because you have no observable evidence at all for abiogenesis, which then sheds a bad light on the validity of human from non-human evolution.
As soon as you demonstrate that a divine designer is absolutely necessary for the origin of life, AND as soon as you demonstrate that every species we see was created separately and that we are not related to chimps or gorillas or dogs or, yes, tobacco plants based on something more than "nuh uh!" we'll accept your version of reality. Without evidence, it's just you making shit up, which is something you're legendary for.If it is found that a divine designer is absolutely necessary for the origin of life, then there is no need for evolution. To tie the two together makes both appear even weaker than they already are. You guys are trying unsuccessfully to avoid that.