[quote] (1) Evolution is not random chance, but a process defined by the law of natural selection.[spoiler]...each piece is haphazardly clashed against every other piece with no pattern whatsoever.[/spoiler][/quote]Hey Atheists, is there something wrong with this statement?[quote](2)...Evolution is cumulative.[/quote]His analogy exhibited that even if the elements to self-create our planet over millions to billions of years existed, the likelihood of them reaching a level of inevitable complexity is a mathematical impossibility. [quote][spoiler]To more accurately represent evolution, you would have to shake your box practically indefinitely, ...saving the assemblages that could eventually make up a watch.[/spoiler][/quote]It still is regarded as impossible since the steps to comply with every minuet and correct, additional part would have to function in an orderly manner, which you stated in your point #1 statement as impossible.[quote](3)...[spoiler]...We do not observe complex new creatures in the fossil record, rather we see them changing from a line of gradually dissimilar ancestors.[/spoiler][/quote]The fossil record shows evidence of only micro-evolution (variations of the same species), but it does not show either branches of at least one species or the high count of transitional fossils for even one species. If evolution does indeed operate over millions to billions of years, is their not supposed to be over at least a million (which there isn't) transitional fossil records [b]per species[/b]? Evolutionists claim that the process of evolution is in fact very slow and very minuet, but all atheistic archeologists can find are only an acclaimed few. Even Darwin doubted as to the origin of these small minuet changes that were acclaimed to be caused by the present environmental hazards he assumed to be affecting their biology, saying, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory" (On the [i]Origin of Species[/i], Chapter 6). The study of abiogenesis (the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.) doesn't even have a conclusion as to the manifestation of organic life from non-organic material, or even a conclusion as to the necessity and development of intelligence (for only one species) and complexity.