Summations Only

In the same way, the potential for War and Peace exists in the Bible - all of the letters are there. All you need to do is rearrange them. So there's only "micro" difference between them?

Again, your task as a creationist is to show that those vestigial frets CAN NOT be used. You need to show that no frets are possible beyond 12.

Creationists need re-training in a lot of areas. Lack of training is what makes them creationists.Vestigial refers to the loss of a former use. It doesn't necessarily mean there is no current use. For example, wagon wheels have a use are lawn ornaments but they've lost their former use as wagon wheels.Edited by ringo, : Fixed attribution.

That's kinda like saying a brick gets promoted to a house. What really happens is that a hypothesis is tested; if it fails the test it's discarded, like a damaged brick. But if it passes the test it becomes a brick in the wall, a plank in the theory. The testing tends to spawn new hypotheses which are tested and discarded or added to the wall. Eventually, you get a house (theory).So common descent is just another brick in the wall. Even without it, there would still be a wall.

A theory, specifically one like evolution, is not based on one hypothesis.

Matter isn't dead. Some matter isn't alive and never was - e.g. an iron bar. Some matter is alive - e.g. a squirrel. Some matter used to be alive - e.g. a corpse. The corpse is dead but the matter isn't.There's no fundamental difference between the matter in a living thing and the matter in a non-living thing. Life is just a different set of chemical reactions.And it isn't even all that easy to tell whether something is alive or not. It's a fuzzy line.So it's rather silly to proclaim that matter can't make a certain change.

The fact that you hand-wave it says a lot about your grip on chemistry.Again. Non-living matter is not dead. The only difference between living and non-living is chemistry.

Sure it is. The young-earthers will tell you that science keeps changing the age of the earth. It's getting closer and closer to the "right" answer but it has to get a lot of "wrong" answers along the way. The best that science can ever do is the current best estimate of "right".

So you reject astronomy too? Because what astronomers are seeing today is what happened a long time ago.

Both are a demonstration that the chemistry is possible.You guys keep saying it's impossible. Then every time they demonstrate a step you say, "No wait, it's the next step." Then when that step is demonstrated you say, "No wait, it's the next step after that." After being wrong step after step, maybe it's time to reconsider your conclusion.

Science knows the answer to both of those.

If astronomy can tell us what happened billions of years ago, why can't geology? Why would you reject one and not the other?

Science can and does explain why the sky IS blue and the grass IS green. You can put any fairy-tale spin on it that you want but that's not as satisfying as knowing.

Figures of speech are habitually silent.

You can no more explain "why" God did something than science can. "How" is certainly a step above no explanation at all.