(2019-04-11, 12:14 PM)Steve001 Wrote: By the way, how long is the way for creationists to directly demonstrate via multiple lines of evidence that immaterial evolution is viable?
Much evidence is interpretable according to the interpreter's reality tunnel but with no guiding factor we have to rely upon random mutation which is highly improbable. It doesn't prove conclusively that there is a guiding factor but something somewhere between creationism and evolution seems to me to be the type of theory that involves the least speculation and therefore is the most likely. The guiding factor doesn't have to be a "god" in the religious sense of course. This argument, however is old and it bores me. Maybe we should stick to discussing the ins and outs of gene functions in this thread instead of speculating on the wider picture. We can each join the dots for ourselves in our own time. Science will never either prove or disprove any supernatural element to creation or life.