Correct. Humans can accomplish that which God gives them the ability.
I have a problem with the word "evolution", because it, by definition, assumes an upward progression of the creature from a simple to a decidedly more complex creature.
On what do you base this assertion? The assertion of evolution is that the surviving descendants will be those most fit for their environment. The inference
of evolution - backed up by a wealth of data in genetics, anatomy, palaeontology - is that we and all other living things developed as a result of progressive changes over generations. Evolution doesn't specify
complexity - it just so happens that complexity is an emergent function of it.
Also, evolution deals with populations
, not individuals; and what do you mean by "decidedly
more complex"? As such, I have a serious problem with your so-called "definition".
I just don't see any bona fide examples of this happening in nature.
Well, if you will come up with half-arsed definitions, and you're not exactly looking very hard, then that's hardly surprising. It helps if you look at what the ToE actually says
, and what we can observe
as a result of evolutionary Theory.
This observation thus nullifies abiogenesis as defined by today's theoretical models.
That appears to be some extremely sloppy thinking there. How does one non-observation, particularly one as erroneous as this one appears to be, "nullify" abiogenesis?
What I do see is lateral differentiation of the creature. One ancestral dog-wolf differentiating into many breeds.
Perhaps you should look further.
btw I have no problem whatsoever with aeons of time as pertaining to the age of the earth .
Well that, at least, is a relief.