Probably you did not get my point
I got your point. What makes you think that you got MY point?
You mixed up two topics a) the existance of matter b) the existance of life
No, they are not mixed up. You need matter to exist before you can determine that matter has decided to become alive. You cannot have a word without letter, you cannot have organic molecules without carbon. You cannot have carbon life forms without matter.
The point is that creationism can be refuted beyond any reasonable doubt
Since there are two only alternatives , evolutionism is the true theory
Right. I understand your point, the problem is that you dont understand MY point. There are only 2 alternatives therefore in the absence of proof of one, the other must exist. Dont be so arrogant as to think that I cant understand you. Your point is simple, I just disagree with it. I think that you are 100% wrong. It is 100% inverted from the truth.
the former is not a mistery any more for modern physics
According to the Heisemberg's principle of indetermination " the existance " is a natural state
It seems a paradox but the "non existance" needs a destructor rather than " the existance " a creator "
Obviusly it is not an intuitive claim but it is supported by lab evidences
Its absolutely ridiculous that anyone would actually consider this as a possibility, it is completely non-sensical.I will ask you this:
WHERE_DID_THE_MATTER_COME_FROM?
The latter is still a mistery since nobody can explain how a bulk of molecules can turn into a living organism
The mere chance is definitly excluded even taking into account milion years and bilion stars
I can explain easily. God created life as we know it. He created the major phyla and imprinted within them the dna code to adapt to a variety of environments.
Given for granted assumption a) Suppose that in a near future scientists can create in lab,living organisms
Would you change your mind ?
Or suppose you die and see God for yourself. Would that change YOUR mind?
