Replies

Perhaps it might be more prudent of the evolutionists to check the accuracy of their belief in a system that cannot demonstrate how life came about from non-life.

You err in three different ways:

1. The validity of evolution in no way depends on the question of how life first arose, just as the validity of meteorology (the study of weather) depends in no way on where the air came from originally. Whether the atmosphere was poofed into existence by God, coalesced out of a solar nebula, was belched out by volcanos, or was poured into place by gigantic alien space ships, the properties and behavior of the atmosphere remain the same and depend only on its current composition, and meteorology is just as valid no matter what the source of the atmosphere. And it's the same for evolution -- evolution concerns the history of life on Earth, and the properties of living things and how they change over time due to the relevant processes, once life existed, no matter *where* it "came from". When you drive a car, does the physics of energy and momentum by which it works -- and you drive -- depend upon the source of the metal it's made from? No. Does the operation of an internal combustion engine depend upon the source of the gasoline it burns -- or only upon its chemical composition? *Wherever* life came from, evolution accurately describes what has happened to it since.

In fact, anyone familiar with evolutionary biology would understand that it is *isolated* from whatever processes originally formed life. Evolution can only take place when *reproduction* exists. Since reproduction obviously was not occurring before the first things which we might accurately label as "living", the original formation of life *necessarily* occurred by processes other than evolution. The nature of those processes, whatever they might have been, are irrelevant to evolution itself, and evolution is irrelevant to the original formation of life. It is either ignorant or dishonest to try to pin the validity of evolution to whether or not anyone can demonstrate how the NON-evolutionary origin of life occurred. It's like blaming the Bush administration for events which occurred before he took office. Abiogenesis was pre-evolution, and occurred by different processes. Evolution stands or falls on its own, it is not dependent upon any theory (or lack of theory) of life's ultimate origins. Even if God dropped the earliest life forms onto the planet, evolution *still* demonstrably shaped them thereafter.

2. Evolutionists *have* "checked the accuracy of their belief" in a mind-boggling number of independent methods, countless times over the past 100+ years. It has passed these tests with flying colors, and has survived all potential tests of falsification.

3. Contrary to your unfounded presumption, research into abiogenesis (the origins of life) have been extremely fruitful. The picture is still incomplete of course (but then, so is the atomic theory of matter and every other scientific field of study), but there have been a vast number of findings which, while not conclusive, *very* strongly indicate that the "life arose naturally" hypothesis is on the right track. Your apparent notion that science "cannot demonstrate" or support any aspect of this paradigm is extremely mistaken. The hypothesis of abiogenesis makes a huge number of predictions about what we should find when we look at the evidence, and in the many ways which we have to date been able to test these predictions, they have been confirmed.

1. The validity of evolution in no way depends on the question of how life first arose, just as the validity of meteorology (the study of weather) depends in no way on where the air came from originally.

Hogwash.

You mean to tell me that in the history of the cosmos, a mysterious force so powerful that it would affect the whole of future life - know as "evolution" - sprung into being out of nowhere? The validity of evolution is very dependent upon the question of how life first arose because in that very question is the explanation of how a new cosmic force arose. The laws of gravity, thermodynamics, or even the understood nature of mass in the theory of relativity did not just spring up out of nowhere one day on the cosmic calendar. I would expect the force of "evolution" to be no different. If it is a force that guides the development of life, it necessarily must have exited prior to the creation of first life and affected its outcome.

Furthermore, "meteorology" is not a proposed causal force in the universe, it is an attempt to understand how particular forces act to affect our weather. Understanding what first caused weather would be most beneficial to current meteorologists as they could compare today's movement with the first movements and make more accurate predictions for the future - which evolution has failed to do, I might add. So, your analogy fails.

Weather does not require a starting point from which to function. Life must. Even a child knows that life is differentiated from non-life, that a test tube of chemicals cannot give birth to another test tube of chemicals.

While research into the origins of life may have been "fruitful", it still lacks the essential point of proof that is the foundation of any peer review system. So far, no "peer" has been able to reproduce what God claims: life from constituent components.

You will recall that the inability of the scientific peers of Ponds and Fleishman to reproduce their cold-fusion experiment was the basis to label these claims as being unfounded. Why the double standard? Let's be honest: evolutionists need to prove that God is not who He says He is: the creator of life. Indeed, it seems to me these folks are frantic to find any other possible way to explain life- other than it was created as a deliberate act by a higher power.

A Creator that does not exist, or at least who has a major claim to his power nullified, cannot make any demands of humanity and certainly has no business setting standards of morality by which He will judge humanity in the resurrection. (Daniel 12:2, Rev 20:12) Indeed, the entire concept of a resurrection to judgement is mooted by evolutionary theology. When life comes from nothing, nothing is the standard for life.

Why else would a Creator matter, or make necessary such lengthy and angry replies to the mere suggestion that evolutionists start from a faulty assumption, an assumption it is forbidden to mention in polite company.