Assumptions

When they see a living thing, don't most people assume it has at least one parent? When you see a "man-made" object, don't you assume it was made by a man (or woman)? I would say that creationism should be added to that list of assumptions everyone makes. One that everyone SHOULD make actually. Simple common sense will answer most questions that science struggles with.

You don't need evidence to know that every person and every animal you see was brought into the world by a parent. This is not something that even the simplest mind needs to consider any evidence about, it is simple common sense and common knowledge. At what point in your life did you sit down and study every mammal in the world to be sure that they all have parents? You did not. You assume they all have parents because common sense says they do. Did you ever trace the history of your computer back to the factory where it was assembled to be sure that someone remembers that specific computer coming down the assembly line? Nope, and you certainly did not assume the computer popped into existence from nothing. You assume that Dell, Apple, HP, or some other company created it. No one has to prove that to you, you just assume it is true because common sense says so. And finally, how exactly dose creation not answer every single question about anything? It was made that way by a divine being...simple.

I absolutely agree with that statement... but how exactly is that NOT an assumption? 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. I don't believe that at all. I agree that common sense could never explain a humans beings genetic make-up or a cows digestive process. But the question posed by the EvC debate is actually a fairly simple one. Dose the universe have a parent or not? And I can't understand how people can over-complicate that question so much. I realize that there is plenty of evidence to support evolution, but that dose not DISPROVE creation in any way. On the other hand there is NO evidence or example of anything anywhere in nature without a parent. It is absurd to believe that something can simply exist without a "parent" of some kind. No amount of evidence can justify a ridiculous idea that itself breaks the first law of thermodynamics. I would not even try to prove that to you. I would remind you that simple common sense alone is enough to justify my claim that all living things have a parent. I have never in my life met a single person that has even considered otherwise. And I would challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary.

Alright, I am bored explaining the same thing over and over again but I will try one last time. Simplest possible terms, YES there is evidence that everything has parent but NO people don't need to see that evidence because it is an obvious truth. Like that you can see when it is light or breath when there is air. No one needs it proved to them that a sledge hammer to the face will hurt, even a mentally challenged person would be afraid to take a hammer to the face because they simply assume it would hurt. There IS evidence that it would hurt, but no one needs that evidence because of good old common sense. Same rule applies to "parents" or causes (thought that was clear from the start). A two year could find an M&M on the floor and use simple common sense to know there could be a bag of M&M's around. No one has to present any evidence, the very existence of the M&M is all the proof you need. I know everyone thinks I am over-simplifying things, but at least consider that you may be over-complicating things.
By the way, the universe is a complex system of millions or billions of galaxies...not an inanimate object which would be incapable of sustaining and maintaining itself. Like the barrier reef, also not a product of a random POOF into existence.