Evolutionist's.....care to discuss?

[.blank cd]

No theory or math is needed to see that "adaptation" happens. That is something very observable that can be seen in each of our life times.

Almost got it....

I am not at odds with " how it started ". One, because evolution does not show empirical evidence how it started.

This is because no evolutionary theory has ever attempted to explain how life began. Ever. This is not what evolution is. That is called "abiogenesis"

Two, because the theory itself has many holes and is at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It doesn't if you understand what the 2nd law of biological thermodynamics means.

The real problem lies in this, the model is changed to somehow "fit" into natural laws not based on the search for truth (wherever it might lead) but rather to fit in with the atheistic agenda. By the way, i understand the Miller-Urey experiment very well, I also understand that the experiment came under a lot of fire. "There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced." When new experiments were conducted with what is now believed to be a more realistic "early atmosphere"...no amino acids were formed. So that experiment is invalid as the results have not been reproduced.

There is very little debate to what early atmosphere is. The only debate is between those manufacturing dissent