"Creation Science" on astrophysics?

Can you explain the difference between abiogenesis and the Big Bang in terms of experimental evidence ? We haven't produced a Big Bang - or even a star in a test tube so far as I know.And I would point out that the formation of life (abiogenesis) is not strictly speaking part of evolutionary theory. It cannot be since a key stage (the formation of the initial replicators) and everything prior to that cannot be explained by evolution at all. It is all in the domain of chemistry.

That is interesting. You use a different idea of "experimental data" when talking about the Big Bang than when talking about evolution. Can you explain why ?Abiogenesis is not evolution so I don't know why you dragged it up (although there is certainly relevant experimental data even there - more so than for the Big Bang which is based on observation and theory rather than laboratory experiment). And there is more than just the formation of amino acids (How about the work of Sidney Fox to name just one example ?)And there is plenty of observational data supporting what you call "macrospecies evolution". Just like the Big Bang we have observation and extrapolation - why is that "experimental data" when applied to the Big Bang but not for "macrospecies evolution" ?

Well at this point the best thing to do is to point you at the talk.origins "29 Evidences for Macroevolution" FAQ29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentIf you expect to see anything more than speciation in a laboratory experiment I would appreciate some reasoning as to why.Life does consist of chemical compounds even if we haven't worked out the chemical reactions required to bridge the gap between life and non-life (whatever that is - there is no clear dividing line). But as I say there is far more to it than simply producing amino acids. Research didn't stop back in the '50s.