A good summary of so called human evolution.

Mike is playing you guys like harps. As he has announced, his strategy is to post and run. He may respond to one or more of your posts, but only if he can troll you some more. He does not give a crap about your rebuttals.

No. My father was a professor at Homiletics at a prestigious seminary school in Atlanta. He would argue and debate for hours on end in an honest fashion and I am sorry that I missed opportunities to ask him things while I was here. He was pretty proud of the fact that I was a science and technology-minded kid.I understand that you've only seen religious person behave as mike does, but he does not represent all religious folk. Mike has a chip on his shoulders... or is that his ass? Either way, I would not let him bend you out of shape.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps you should get out more. There are people who are stupid on almost every topic imaginable.

I understand that. Informing others is the primary and most compelling reason for responding to trolls.On the other hand, I believe that mike's stupidity is readily apparent and that the service provided by responding to him is minimal. Obviously, there is room for disagreement with my opinion.

I have no idea what you are talking about.Take a look through the loony of the month thread sometime. You'll find that people find ways to be stupid about stuff that have nothing to do with religion.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Do you believe you could have convinced that group of Trump voters to change their mind with a screenful or two of prose?

I can understand the appeal of this argument, but let's also note that it has an important limitation. The sword you use is just as sharp against abiogenesis as it is against creationism. If we are going to require evidence before accepting one, then we need evidence for the other.Creationist invoke a miracle to explain the beginning of live, while scientist invoke abiogenesis which requires a chain leading from chemistry on basic molecules to self-replicating molecules then to life. Neither side can claim that their required process has been observed.

Uh, the one described in Genesis?Is this really a serious question?

That's a might bold claim that I am not sure that I believe. Have we really observed non-living chemical replicators and all of the intermediates between them and a living cell? I thought we were still postulating about what that path might have been. Surely you aren't just saying that we have found all of the organic compounds that make up living beings.

We've only seen 'those components' in some generic sense. We have no idea which specific sets of components led to any particular unicellular life, which is yet another step before we can claim to have witnessed abiogenesis.Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis.