1: Fell off the rocker didn't ya. I keep saying this and somehow you disregard it each time. I said it in my first reply to you, but I'm going to bold it this time so it might actually stick to that pea-brain of yours;
EVOLUTION DOES NOT GIVE ANSWERS PERTAINING TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH, RATHER IT'S DIVERSITY. TO EVEN BOLSTER THIS ARGUMENT ALREADY SHOWS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN CARE TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT THE SCIENCE ACTUALLY ENTAILS. Yes dude, the human body is complex, and life has had billions of years to constantly grow & improve it's structures through environment, food & resources, predatory species, etc. You guys seem to propose this false dichotomy of "god or goop"; where the only alternative to intelligent design is a human spontaneously generating from mud, or even single celled organisms generating from mud. Please, continue to use this argument against atheists, it's self-mockery on your behalf because nobody claims that's how it happened. Also debate 101, don't use links and videos to fight your battles for you, I couldn't care less. Links and videos are for
source use only, otherwise you're wasting your time. If you want to argue origins of life, I urge you to learn about abiogenesis. I wouldn't argue it with me because I myself remain somewhat unconvinced.(mostly due to my ignorance of the subject) I still use it as a credible alternative to creationism, though I'm open to other possibilities.
2: If by "information" you mean DNA, it was attained as microorganisms adapt & more slowly attained as larger organisms evolve. This is like basic evolution, dude. For example, microorganisms like bacteria alter themselves. They alter the target site of the antibiotic, like binding protection proteins to the ribosomes, changing the shape & thus the antibiotic can no longer bind to the ribosome to inhibit protein synthesis. (see; Antimicrobial resistance for this information and more) This is new information, which is then passed on through the infamous gene transfer, the main reason for antibiotic resistance. These organisms can pass on the newly attained info to one another, creating an
improved version of the old organism. Evolution at work, right before our very eyes, and new information attained by single celled organisms. Here's an abridged diagram on the before & after during this process;
![[IMG]](proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff6%2FAntibiotic_resistance.svg%2F300px-Antibiotic_resistance.svg.png&hash=3a55dabb41e7e6d47dd9d37b7962f504)
3: Oh my god, irreducible complexity. I'll tell another why it's actually a pseudo-scientific theory. Evolution doesn't work in a "step-wise" fashion. Evolution is guided by completely arbitrary factors like environment, predators (and level of), resources, climate, and obviously the type of organism we're talking about here. In order for irreducible complexity to make any sense, you have to presuppose that evolution works steadily regarding mutation rates, environmental factors, and most importantly; the rate, ways, opportunities for, and reasons things form. Think of the relationship between dinosaurs and birds in that regard; dinosaurs originally evolved feathers to keep warm, but the reason for this changed as their future relatives became avian & used this for advantages in flight. tl;dr right here; argument from incredulity, presuppositional, many factors not accounted for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity Linking this to show greater depth of info I already provided, not blatantly introducing it to strengthen my argument.
The other argument under the same name flies as, "organisms are too complex for the human mind to understand, therefore a creator had to have been involved". First of all, no, they're not. I just explained to you in the previous post a bit about how single-celled organisms evolve. If you mean to talk about their origins, again, completely separate topic.
But secondly, this is fallacious in a couple ways; moving goalpost & one of creationists' favorite fallacious arguments, the false dichotomy. They constantly move the goalpost, ie earthquakes were god's wrath before we knew about plate tectonics, and rain was a gift before we knew about the water cycle. Saying something is too complex to understand is to equate your argument to "earthquakes? god is pissed!" I'm not saying we don't understand microorganisms quite well,
but using scientific ignorance to insert your god is by no means a credible argument. + again we have the false dichotomy of "god or nothing" where they believe that if somehow evolution isn't able to explain these creatures (which it can, but they presuppose that it cannot) it must have been their god and nothing other. The problem with this is that, well...you can literally apply that to any imaginable deity & it will make the same amount of sense. Not only that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say evolution was discredited tomorrow...why does that automatically point to god? Why can there not be other science that is stumbled upon that explains it better than the assumed falsified evolution?
Not only that but legit question here, Why do you continue to tie evolution and atheism together? Need I remind you, the pope, one of the most revered religious men on earth, urges the Catholic church to accept the science of evolution. Evolution is science, atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Simply because evolutionary theory causes people to disregard creationism doesn't mean it causes them to automatically become atheistic. A large amount of biblical followers just consider certain passages allegorical.
Click to expand...
