Creationism Disproved?

One that would have died billions of years ago from all of the mutations it was bombarded with. How can you assume mutations will help a species when there is no given rule to it's existence?

We do know that the first life would had to have been a replicating molecule, one that could reproduce itself in the environment by virtue of its chemical structure. All the add-ons are just there to help it be a better replicator.

Again you're having a hard time distinguishing between evolution and origins. Evolution does not address the origin of of anything but rather how existing things evolved.

Quite the contrary about Stonehenge. While its origins are a bit shady, we have a good idea of where it came from due to old excavation records and such.

Think of how life originally was. The first cells were very, very simple compared to the cells of today; the first self-replicating molecule even more so.
Also, biochemistry like this is not chance; it inevitably produces complex products. Complex molecules like amino acids are even known to form in space.

@ akabookoo, religion is by very definition devisive, sectarian and destructive to a fair, inclusionary society. I'm assuming you're Christian by your previous comments as to how science needs a god (your God, obviously) to kick-start life.

Evolutionary theory does not address how life started, so you can still accept it wholly to your heart's content.

Just as humans can make complex things which nature can't, so can nature make complex things which humans can't. I'd be very surprised if humans were capable of making a cell because we lack information on what stages the cell originally underwent. Introducing any part of the cell at the wrong time will end in failure.

Give me sopme examples of what he has said, for...what's the word?

People get so caught up in trying to strictly define objective "reality" that they forget what "reality" really is: subjective experiences. Why does one story (religion, god, etc.) have to be more or less "true" than another story (science, evolution, and so on.) Because that's what they both are: stories. Science, religion, whatever you use to describe your own reality, give us context. They tell us, "This is how things are. This is where you fit in." That's a really important thing, context is, but too often do people look outward to find context. They look to religious leaders, political leaders, scientists for some kind of grasp of what they should be spending their energy and brainpower on. My point is this: why look outward, when your true meaning, the best context you could possibly have, is inward? Use science to get a grasp on objective reality, yes. But also, don't forget that true reali

We set our beleifs in a book supposedly completely the word of god even when we know it has been revised time and time again

What?

Furthurmore, this was a mere experiment, which was fairly short

The first question you should be asking yourself, by the way, is not how life arose from non-organic material, but rather how organic molecules arose from non-organic molecules and then go from there. Start small and simple and work your way up - that is how every form of life on this planet started.

I said nothing of quantity. Spontaneous generation held that new organisms are generated daily and in modern times while abiogenesis holds that life has only one origin dating billions of years ago. Besides that, the various hypotheses under abiogenesis have chemistry, biology and physics to support its arguments while spontaneous generation was just an observation lacking any scientific merit. The two are simply not equal.