[Con X-Poser]

<< http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/biology/Handbooks/evolearly.htm >>

So now you're admitting the entire paradigm for the origin of life was DRASTICALLY wrong - but we're supposed to believe all your evidence for evolution?

If evolutionists have been so wildly wrong about such an important item for decades - why should we put any stock in the rest of the story?

All this time your side has been defending the old paradigm tooth-and-nail, mocking creationists for "not understanding" and being ignorant (just like you argue the rest of the evolutionary myth) and suddenly you become Roseanna Anna D'Anna with "Never mind!"

It turns out creationists were right all along. The classic scenario for abiogenesis won't work - so you have to invent a new scenario.

<< Next will come lots of naysaying about the use of the words "may have" and "probably" in the above quote >>

Ah, you see it's weakness already. Larded with assumption and speculation, like the rest of the evolutionary fable.

[Dataman]

If evolutionists have been so wildly wrong about such an important item for decades - why should we put any stock in the rest of the story?

But ConX, "science" is self-correcting. Since it is so far off the mark regarding origins, it will be correcting itself very often for a very long period of time. So just relax, take a deep breath and believe everything they tell you until they self-correct.

There are thousands of examples but just consider these:

Believe in the Steady State or be a Luddite.
Believe in the Big Crunch or be a Luddite.
Believe in the Big Fizzle or be a Luddite.
Believe the earth is 2 million years old or be a Luddite.
Believe the earth is 2 billion years old or be a Luddite.
Believe the earth is 4+ billion years old or be a Luddite.
Believe dinosaurs were cold-blooded or be a Luddite.
Believe dinosaurs were warm-blooded or be a Luddite.

At what point will evolutionists apologize to those who refused to believe what was later falsified? They owe a huge apology to doubters who have been correct!

[Con X-Poser]

<< But ConX, "science" is self-correcting >>

Yes it is, very much so. But for something to be 'corrected' it must first had to have been WRONG. Thus, evolution has been very wrong. Every time we point out an error they play the "self-correcting" card.

[VadeRetro]

You mean Emily Litella.

Her half-deaf, spinsterly media analyst Emily Litella ended her tangents with "Oh. Never mind", while Geek Queen Lisa Lupner coined "That was so funny I almost forgot to laugh" while suffering the wrath of Murray's "Noogie Patrol". Her fright-wigged, heavily accented newscaster Roseanne Rosanna-Danna used the late Herman Radner's favorite catch-phrase, "It just goes to show you, it's always something".

Gilda Radner (1946 - 1989).

[gomaaa]

So now you're admitting the entire paradigm for the origin of life was DRASTICALLY wrong - but we're supposed to believe all your evidence for evolution?

WHEN did I say ANYTHING was drastically wrong? How does the link I provided maodify ANY of the central ideas of evolution? Your argument is the classic "It has been changed from it's original formula, therefor it can't be true." category. We've told you a hundred times, THAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS! You generate a theoretical framework that can be falsified and then change or abandon it as observation warrants. The details of life's early origins are by no means set in stone, nor are they likely to be EVER. Science is not dogmatic. It's a system of carefully reasoned and tested educated guesses, but I'll take biology's educated guesses over your absolute truths any day!