Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe
"Baloney. You avoid the first step of evolution because you have no natural explanation for it. To even discuss it in the context of evolution opens the door to supernatural explanations and if you invite any discussion beyond a simple naturalistic explanation, then you have to admit that the possibility of a supernatural cause for abiogensis and the evolution of the first life forms would leave upon the door for a supernatural explanation for the development of complex life forms, which you refuse to even consider."

Actually the ToE cannot address abiogenesis. Much of the content of the ToE consists of mechanisms such as allele variation and various types of selection on those alleles. Because we do not yet know what occurred at the beginning we have no idea how those mechanisms could be applied. Why would the ToE try to address something beyond its current range? If science finds that it can be applied, then it will be included.

670 posted on 01/27/2006 1:15:07 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]


To: b_sharp

Why don't creationists whinge about Gravitational Theory? It doesn't address the origins of matter, after all.

If they were intellectually honest, they would fight as hard to deny the work of Einstein as they do the work of Darwin.

That they do not tells us much about their agenda.


672 posted on 01/27/2006 1:18:30 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies ]

To: b_sharp; P-Marlowe
Actually the ToE cannot address abiogenesis.

And that is exactly why the TOE must fail. If evolutionists recognize that their theory cannot account for the origin of life, how can they possibly simply dismiss creation/ID when they can offer no explanation for the origin of life?

The failure of evolutionists to offer any explanation for the origin of life concedes Behe's conclusions related to irreducible complexity.

675 posted on 01/27/2006 1:25:56 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies ]

To: b_sharp
Why would the ToE try to address something beyond its current range?

The entire theory is out of its current range. No one observed the assent of man, yet it is taught as a fact. Evolution is postualtion based on speculation and not observation. Abiogenesis is an easily proven theory. All one needs to do is to sterilize an environment in which life has never existed and add time and a little sunshine and see if life generates itself. No one is ready to even attempt that experiment as it is ludicrous.

If science finds that it can be applied, then it will be included.

Abiogenesis was taught as the FOUNDATION of Evolution when I was in high school. Now it is apparently gone and evolution is left with no foundation.

BTW I forgot that I left this thread. Please don't ping me back. Thanks.

683 posted on 01/27/2006 1:35:53 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson