You take for granted that all living things have a parent, because it is such a simple concept that it requires no evidence to prove it.
No. I conclude that based on the evidence, as do you, even though you don't understand that you do.
I realize that there is plenty of evidence to support evolution,...
Perhaps. But you certainly don't understand it...
...but that dose not DISPROVE creation in any way.
...or you wouldn't say that...
No amount of evidence can justify a ridiculous idea that itself breaks the first law of thermodynamics.
...or that.
And no amount of rhetoric can get around the fact that the ToE doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics.
I agree that common sense could never explain a humans beings genetic make-up or a cows digestive process.
No, the evidence explains that.
But the question posed by the EvC debate is actually a fairly simple one. Dose the universe have a parent or not?
Since there's no evidence whatsoever of anything that could constitute a "parent" as that word is commonly understood, if that were the central question of the debate, the answer would be a resounding NO.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist