As I said before, if spontaneous generation were proven, then evolution would be hurt pretty badly. It is ironic that you use that as a defense of ID creationism.
Hmmm....the evolutionists got the impression that spontaneous generation was necessary to explain the origin of life, without supernatural Creation. So, now you're claiming that proof of spontaneous generation would
hurt evolution? Furthermore, I didn't use spontaneous generation as a defense of Creation. My point for mentioning it was to show that, despite evolutionists admitting that Pasteur showed such to be false, they still adhere to it and evolution, because the only other option is one that they don't like, that doesn't float their philosophical boat: Creation.
And how exactly did God play a role in the creation of the universe or of earth or of man and please provide a scientifically verifiable (read falsifiable) explanation? Do take your time.
As it is a supernatural event, I can't produce a verifiable explanation of the initial act, itself. At best, I can point indirectly to created being and the intricacies therein, to show evidence for a supernatural source of life.
You asked for laboratory proof so I gave you laboratory proof.
So the transitional fossil Archaeopteryx showing the transition btn lizard and bird means nothing to you.
One, fruit flies producing more fruit flies is hardly proof of one creature evolving into another completely unlike itself. To the contrary, it sounds eerily similar to that phrase in Genesis about creatures reproducing after their own kind.
Two, Archaeopteryx is a full-fledged bird, not a bird-lizard hybrid. It was this alleged transition (or any one in which one creature "evolves" into another completely different creature) for which I asked an example of observation in the lab (i.e. a replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles to start sprouting feathers and start clucking, chirping, or quacking). That you have NOT shown.
Flies begat more flies? Tell me something I don't already know.
Oh contraire my friend, there are transitional fossils and the fruit fly study (just b/c you don’t like it does not mean it’s not valid). The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. That’s how it’s done…just like aspects of nuclear phsyics.
Au contraire, the request was for LAB replication, not fossils. If there were natural circumstances that caused reptiles to start changing into birds, such should be able to be replicated in a lab or similar setting. That would be OBSERVATION, someone watching such take place. Define what it takes to make a reptile start displaying bird characteristics (temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, etc.), produce that environment, put a lizard in there, and let's see if some feather start to grow.
Please provide me with one single solitary bit of creationist science that is observable. Do take your time.
You beat me to it, with the fruit flies, a prime example of creatures reproducing after their own kind: different colors, sizes, and reproductive capability, even, But, they're still flies, nonetheless.
That's fine that you believe that. You cannot prove that belief scientifically. God is an unquantifiable non-existent datum and man's ability to rationalize a self-referential infinite phenomenon is a logical impossiblity. You have no scientific metric for showing your belief.
Sure I do, or at least, so do creation scientists (i.e. fossils, rocks, chemicals, etc.).
Criticize evolution all you like. It is factual and compelling. I don't see any challengers from where I'm sitting.
I can and will. Compelling? Maybe? Factual? A whole different story, altogether!!
BTW, might I suggest standing?