If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

Change over time = evolution. Changing flour, salt, water, baking soda and yeast into bread is change over time.


http://www.icr.org/article/historic-primordial-soup-study-yields

 

By that definition then you nor anyone can argue that Biblical Creation is a fact since I and billions of other people "believe" it is true.

Debate over. Checkmate!

 

The Miller-Urey experiment proved chemical evolution happens and may lead to abiogenesis, even if not as fast as being bombarded by amino acid carrying meteors.

 

That's a lie.


Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution?

 

As opposed to relying on assumptions from 2,000 years ago or more?

Miller-Urey proved that under the right conditions, water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) can combine into complex organic compounds called amino acids through natural processes. No intelligence required.

 

No.. no it isn't. Why do you think that? Where do you see that mentioned in the definition you just provided?

 

Nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

Did you miss this?

 

So what, first that was a 1950's study that has been proved wrong. Second, it wasn't life and is 19 amino acids short of all the amino acids required for a living cell.

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution?

 

Lenski's E. Coli experiment, thousands of years of domestic breeding, viruses changing every year alongside vaccinations, the fossil record, the genetic record, comparative physiology. Need we go on?

 

Yes, it is because it involves chemical evolution.

 

Where is your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution?

 

There is nothing wrong but your understanding of the concepts. That experiment proved evolution happens. Only the Origin of Species is controversial.

 

What did the virus evolve [sic] into? What does selective breeding of chickens result in? What scientific facts (not conjecture, supposition, opinion) can be determined by looking at a fossil? What in the genetic record supports evolution?

 

it was there all the time; you really just don't have a clue or a Cause.

 

That would be a lie. The Miller-Urey experiment has never been proven wrong, and it produced far more than just the 20 amino acids required for life.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/

Where is the evidence that you understand evolution?

 

Okay, but there is a clear and distinct difference between chemical and biological evolution. Sure, they can both be described by the word "evolution" due to change occurring, but they are completely different processes. It's like saying that oxidation and nitrification are the same thing because they're both chemical processes.

 

So evolution also involves chemical evolution. What about cosmic evolution?

- - - Updated - - -

How did Miller-Urey prove evolution happens?

 

And right off the bat you basically are touting that you don't understand what evolution is. Evolution isn't one species changing into another species, that's speciation. Evolution causes speciation, but they are not the same thing.

Well, it resulted in speciation.

Go read up on comparative physiology.

Uh, genetic similarities between all living things on this planet.

You question evolution and yet you seem to have the faintest grasp of what it actually is.

 

No, there isn't. Evolution is evolution. You are confusing the Origin of Species with evolution.

 

Is baking ingredients into bread evolution.

 

by creating amino acids in a controlled environment, Her Frankenstein. Have you considered pursuing a doctorate?

 

So all evolution is the same, huh? There are no differences between chemical, cosmic, and biological evolution?

- - - Updated - - -

No. Do you think it is?

 

Yes, evolution is the same regardless even if the process is different for any given Thing.

 

You just admitted that the processes are different. That's what I'm trying to get through your head. You're confusing the subject by talking about abiogenesis (chemical evolution) and biological evolution as if they aren't different processes. He's asking for evidence of biological evolution, not chemical evolution.

 

No, you are confusing evolution with the process of evolving. Evolution must happen to evolve.