Upon reading your post, I have to point out that your very first sentence is a fallacy to the core. (...Not to mention the entire diatribe being nothing more than a well-written propaganda piece.)

In making your statement...

[color:"magenta"]"It is rather humorous that creationists refuse to believe that human life evolved from a single cell, while every single human alive on earth has developed from a single cell."[/color]

Your bold statement clearly makes the enormous assumption that there are similarities between the development of a baby in the womb and the by-chance evolution of a single-cell organism into a highly-complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproducing, machine.

The fact is, there is virtually no relationship between the two, especially as it relates to evolutionary fables.

Here's why.

The information necessary for the development of a totipotent stem cell into a highly-complex, intelligent, symmetrical, self-reproducing machine is already present in the cell.

In a single-cell organism, this information is not present.

The difference between the two examples that you are proclaiming to be similar, is absolutely enormous. In fact, considering the relationship of totipotent cells to unipotent, they are considered opposites.

[color:"brown"]The realization of this fact alone (the one I am teaching you about) has been the reason for many biologists and highly-qualified scientists in other fields to convert to a non-evolutionary belief system.[/color]

As for myself, I have said many times, whether or not I had become a Christian, I would never become an evolutionist because evolution is simply junk science and myth composed to support a political agenda. It is an affront to science.

I mean no offense but I intend to speak the truth with accuracy:

This argument you introduced is one of a rank amateur. Professing yourself to be an intelligent evolutionist, you should certainly know better.

Truthfully, I'm not at all surprised that an evolutionist would rely on such an argument because evolution (1) is based on, and (2) can only survive in the mind of an intelligent person when vast assumptions and deep oversights are preset to support it.


[color:"brown"]"... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."[/color]

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179