creation vs evolution

I have noticed that you said in your response that "without the sun we would freeze to death". And yes this is partly true but that implies a lot of theory and speculation that are not answered in your response. For example when wee look at the rate of the sun's decay we quickly come to a problem of us boiling not freezing. According to official sources, the Sun is shrinking. Direct measurements of the diameter of the Sun _ Since 1836, more than one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, and the U.S. Naval Observatory, have made direct, visual measurements that suggest that the Sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about 0.1% each century or about five feet per hour. - It has been calculated that only "11,210,959 years ago the Sun would have been touching the Earth" ( Quoted from :John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boornazian, "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1863-1953," Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 11, No.2, 1979, p. 437). - These figures are totally inconsistent with a Universe billions of years old. Indirect measurements of the diameter of the Sun Several indirect techniques also confirm that the Sun is shrinking, although these inferred that the Sun's collapse is only about 1/7th as much. - Using these figures, "the Sun would have been touching the Earth about 158,272,358 years ago"(Quoted from David W. Dunham, "Observations of a Probable Change in the Solar Radius between 1715 and 1979," Science, Vol. 210, 12 December 1980, pp. 1243-1245). - The Sun would have absorbed the planets Venus and Mercury. - The shrinking diameter of the Sun is consistent with a young Universe, and totally inconstant with a Universe billions of years old. And yet again i know we would have to assume that the rate of decay was always a constant, but even if it would be a little slower eventually you would come to the same results. Looking at the evolution argument you also have to assume millions of things that had to happen at the same time. Even looking at at the evolution of the first life form. there are millions of things that would have to happen at the same time for the first life form to survive like: it would have to be asexual to survive and reproduce, it would have to find something to eat and so on. Your example of the clock and the hammer contradicts itself. In it you just gave a perfect example of how adding energy destroys rather then makes something new. even if the system is more complex from a thermodynamic standpoint. The clock has been destroyed and you have not created anything new by adding the energy. In actual fact you have made it worse then it was before and this was my point all along. Did you create something better, something with more use something that will be copied by others? The answer is No. Therefore you can not argue that adding energy creates order and helps something (whether it is a living or non-living) survive. You also mentioned UV radiation even if it is true that melanocytes have been shown to directly convert UV radiation from the sun into metabolic energy, you are also aware that if our atmosphere wouldn't exist we all would die UV radiation would kill us and it still does if you are exposed to the sun for long enough. therefore how you can argue that the UV radiation from the sun is at all beneficial to us humans does just blows my mind. Let me address quickly other point you have made like "The Law of Biogenesis is not a "law" in the sense that the laws of physics are. It was proposed in the 1800s and is not held to the same esteem." In a way you are right when you say that this law is not a physics law but it still was a law created by some of the greatest scientists of the ages, and it is not true that it has been disproved. You said "The processes for abiogenesis have been demonstrated in laboratory settings" if you are referring to the the Miller experiment in 1950s he was a far cry away from producing life all he produced was barely few amino acids.and amino acids are like letters of alphabet. Its like you would drop 100 toothpick and produce coupleof letter from how they arranged themselves(e.g A,R). How long would it take you droping the toothpick for you to create a world? and how long will you have to drop them to get a sentence?? and finely how long will you have to drop them to create an oxford dictionery? The more complex the task is the smaller the persantage of you creating it. It works in an exacly the same way when we are talking about them producing amino acids, all they produced is a couple of letters far cry from the oxford dictionery... No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation. A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well. Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. As for the moon again I know that I assume that the rate is the same as it use to be, but so do evolution assume many things and it is still called a reasonble theory.