marc9000 writes:
It didn’t necessarily have to be rearranged from something else. Non-living material had to come into existence instantly, there’s no scientific reason to not believe that living material couldn’t have possibly originated instantly. There may be an atheistic reason, but not a scientific reason. There is a difference between material that was non-living, and ‘nothing’. Creation ex-nihilo can have nothing to do with chemicals.
And where did I say that "creation ex-nihilo" has anything to do with chemicals whatsoever? For that matter, where did I say that life
must've come about from rearangement of different parts? And while you're at it, please point out where I said that life
could not possibly have come about instantly.
Different people have different definitions of what ‘evidence’ is. I find the Bible to be perfect in the way it describes human nature, judging it by history and experience. I find Darwin lacking in his knowledge of the simplest forms of life, judging by recent scientific discoveries of the simplest forms of life.
Your bible doesn't even mention the simplest forms of life. Anyway, what does this have to do with evolution being true, or abiogenesis being wholly seperate from it?
Nope — the Bible warns about false teachers, or anyone who tries to add to it beyond the book of Revelation.
And you know I'm a false prophet how? You know, god warned me about people like you, he called them "the great corrupters of my works and words". Guess he doesn't like what you're doing.