Creationism VS Evolution

Thanks Con for your argument. But it is all over the map. Its nice to c that u have learned a good deal about stars, and their combustion. However, all con did was provide us with an imaginary tale unevidenced by any scientific observation. If you noticed, con used alot of scientific terms, but did not provide us with an iota of evidence. This is called science fiction. Con does not KNOW or have ANY evidence for stars combusting to create organic molecules over billions of years. Does he? No. He does not. Thus , this tale is purely imaginary. Though con uses the idea of star formation (also a theory) , he should very well know that star formation does not include abiogenisis. We do not know how inorganic molecules such as hydrogen and helium can become organic. We simply have ZERO evidence to substantiate any theory over the theory that ",god did it." We are unaware of what kind of external circumstances were required for the formation of organic life. We do not know how organic life was able to evolve into such complicated forms we have today. But even if Con's guess about abiogensis is correct, it does not place macro evolution over creation. If God is the entity to create the universe and put all the cosmos and its formation into motion, God is still the creator of life, even if the universe and evolution managed to create life on its own. Evolution becomes nothing but a tool that God has used. Con also has not given us any examples of new species that are being created today and observable. Also, if ,,God created the universe and life, sorry Con, i do not think God is a form of life. That is a bit illogical. If ,God is a form of life, that means ,God can also die? Certainly , thats not the kind of god that can do much, let alone create a whole universe, God is also not a conscious behaving creature, As con proposes. God is beyond Cons imagination. Or anyone elses. God certainly is not some creature or being. I dont know what God is, but i can tell that Con is already building a straw god. The babys milk story was irrelevant. Though appreciated. Con has not demonstrated how people acquired such advanced moral capacity only via evolution or natural selection. It seems morality for the most part goes against primate survival instincts. Many competing evolutionary biologist assert different theories for human morality, which is further evidence that there simply isnt enough evidence fo conclude the origin or our morality. The case is the same for language. The bible is not a science book, and does not need to be entirely accurate. When the bible says on the first dAY. Let there be light. How is there even a"day" when god hasn't created the sun and the stars and the moon yet,,? Easy answer day,,= age. Day could mean 1000 yrs, and that puts things in perspective. Actually the greek or hebrew word for "day" is the same as the word "aeon" whi h also means age. Micro evolutionary processes may take place,and star formation may have caused the first organic molecules to form. But even from that point , evolutionists also Have zERO evidence for the acquisition of language and how it worms. Noam chomsky is a leading linguist in this field and also admits blatantly of his own ignorance on how people truly acquired language. As well as their morality. Its also interesting to note that language and morality are internal capacities like skills, yet innate , like your arms and legs. This lack of physical form leads us to conclude that the external pressures that brough about such change were also nonphysical. Like God.