In some way, the understanding of molecular biology does put evolution on shakey ground because even the simplest life forms are extremely complex making it highly unlikely that they developed without guidance in an organic soup.
Some would say that just about anything found in Genesis is
highly unlikely. What basis for comparison do we have other than science?
complexity does not come together by chance
This is garbage-in, garbage-out because of how the statement in poised. If ever there is anything in nature that is complex, this to you is evidence of the guided hand by a Designer. Since you automatically assume that complexity equals intentional design by a cognizant mind, would you be able to look beyond a personal bias and incredulity to ever give random processes a fighting
chance (pun intended) to be examined as a logical possibility?
Some scientists have shown thru experiments that life cannot originate by chance...that in itself puts evolution (basic lifeforms advancing to more complex lifeforms) in doubt.
What experiments? Behe's? If so, have you seen the refutations?
there is no such thing as 'simple' life....its all very complicated and even though you know that, you will continue to be led by the idea that complicated life is the result of slow evolution. Why?
Because thus far it is the only theory that has any explanatory power. I go on record submitting that there are unanswered questions in evolution and it could not possibly explain all things related to genetics. But that is the nature of science, and creationism is a failure beyond reasonable doubt.
I thought scientists were supposed to be the ones who look for evidence before they believed a particular theory. In the case of evolution, the theory has come before the evidence.
I suppose you are alleging that creationism is immune to this??? Of all scientific theory, creationism is the
most biased theory on the planet. The entire theory is premised upon a book, full of [pseudo] scientists who distort evidence to conform to a book, rather than seeing whether or not the book conforms to the evidence.
So if the study into abiogenesis shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that life could NOT have arisen in a primordial soup, you are still absolutely certain that the ToE will hold true???
The philosophical question of the chicken/egg debate still exists and I also reject evolutionists unilateral support of untestable data for the sake of promoting atheism.
The problem is that evolution does not equal atheism in all cases, but creationism equals theism every time without fail. It is therefore hypocritical to point to some sort of bias when you clearly have your own.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
™ Version 4.2
