: Wow! That's quite an argument, Gideon, and very well put. It is absolutely correct... until you begin describing evolution as scientific. Since science must be observable -- evolution as it pertains to the origin of the earth, universe, life, etc. -- cannot be science. Since we have observed evolution happening, many times, this is simply not true. Placing your hands in front of your eyes does not make the evidence go away, no matter how often you deny seeing it.
See the observed instances of speciation FAQ at talkorigins.org for details.
:All we can do is observe things as they presently are
This is also an explicit denial of the validity of the forensic sciences, by the way. Are you really willing to release all the criminals that were convicted on the basis of forensic evidence, simply because nobody witnessed their crimes? Are you willing to have them live in your neighborhood?
:(or refer to things written before by those who lived and observed in time periods earlier than ours.
: Hence, since no human was around at the origin of the earth, a study of it cannot be scientific.
Of course "abiogenesis" and evolution are two entirely distinct topics. Abiogenesis refers to the origin of living organisms from non-living matter. Evolution only investigates what happens to living organisms through time, once they exist. Therefore your point is irrelevant to the topic of evolution in the first place. However, many so-called creation "scientists" are attepting to find material evidence in support of a literal interpretation of Genesis. Nobody was around for the first several days of that story, so are the creationists full of bunk, in your opinion?
: You refer to evolution as being an on-going process. In what way?
In that it keeps happening, and we keep seeing it happen.
:When is the last time that a cat had anything other than a kitten? When did a bacterium ever divide into something than two bacteria?
May I ask where you got the idea that evolution is about saltationist transformation? Your TV preacher is not a biologist, so you should probably not take his word for what evolution is all about. Evolution is about small genetic changes that build up over time. It has nothing to do with mice giving birth to hippos or anything of the sort.
:What evolutionist call evolution today is, in fact, devolution.
What are you talking about? What is "devolution?" Does it have something to do with the band DEVO? It certainly has nothing to do with science. Evolution means "change in the relative frequencies of variant genes within a population through time." That is all that it means, and all that it ever meant. Perhaps you should actually read a bit about Darwinian theory before you speak publicly about it.
:Can you "prove" that there has ever been the addition of NEW genetic material as a result of a mutation or other "evolutionary" development?
Yes. Here are some more observed speciation events for your edification. And this site describes some of the recent evidence that beneficial mutations, plus natural selection leads to improved reproductive fitness.
: I'm not aware of any. I may be mistaken, but I'm not aware of any time that a mutation has EVER resulted in a benefit to the organism itself.
Never having learned something is not, in and of itself, cause for embarassment, but I'm not sure how much bragging about the fact really helps your cause. In any case, visit talkorigins.org, look through the archives. The information you're looking for is readily available there.
-Floyd
