To: montanus
Remember, your previous argument was that just because something has never been observed to have happend doesn't mean that it can't. I was not referring to evolution/natural selection in that instance, but rather to abiogenesis.
73 posted on
10/11/2002 10:43:01 PM PDT by
AntiGuv
To: AntiGuv
I was not referring to evolution/natural selection in that instance, but rather to abiogenesis.
Keep in mind that abiogenesis is part of evolution. I know that anyone who actually has studied evolution and understands the theory will tell you that abiogenesis is a seperate matter, but gore3000 has declared that evolution depends on abiogenesis and he must be right, since he sees fit to ignore any evidence to the contrary.
79 posted on
10/11/2002 10:45:56 PM PDT by
Dimensio
To: AntiGuv
Remember, your previous argument was that just because something has never been observed to have happend doesn't mean that it can't.I was not referring to evolution/natural selection in that instance, but rather to abiogenesis.
Ah, so we switched topics between responses without indictating it?
Even so, it doesn't matter: Macroevolution has never been scientifically observed either, and Creationist do not deny natural selection. (Well, I guess some will have a knee jerk reaction and deny any and all parts of the evolutionary argument- but it's not necessary to do so to argue for Creationism.)
81 posted on
10/11/2002 10:51:12 PM PDT by
montanus
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson