[theBuckwheat]

People who assert evolution have a fundamental problem: origins. Their theory depends upon life appearing spontaneously from non-living matter. Nothing they can say about subsequent life forms on this planet change that fact. Yet, they artfully dodge this essential issue by saying they don't deal in origins, even as their faith in the secular depends on the very origin they refuse to consider.

[nmh]

“People who assert evolution have a fundamental problem: origins. Their theory depends upon life appearing spontaneously from non-living matter. Nothing they can say about subsequent life forms on this planet change that fact. Yet, they artfully dodge this essential issue by saying they don’t deal in origins, even as their faith in the secular depends on the very origin they refuse to consider.”

Indeed!

ONLY God, ceates life.

[Coyoteman]

Their theory depends upon life appearing spontaneously from non-living matter. Nothing they can say about subsequent life forms on this planet change that fact. Yet, they artfully dodge this essential issue by saying they don't deal in origins, even as their faith in the secular depends on the very origin they refuse to consider.

False. And I think I have pointed this out to you in the past.

Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

The theory of evolution works just fine with any of these.

[elfman2]

" Their theory depends upon life appearing spontaneously from non-living matter."

No it doesn't. God could have created life in evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory explains what happened after that. Abiogenesis is the theory that explores the origins of life. No "artful dodge" about that. Just your misunderstanding.

[Squawk 8888]

Their theory depends upon life appearing spontaneously from non-living matter

Strawman alert!

No scientific theory in any field addresses the issue of a creator in any way because any such assertions would be scientifically unprovable. The theory simply states that non-living material became living material- which BTW the Bible also states. Evolutionary biology only deals with the process, not whether it was consciously directed.

[mc6809e]

Their theory depends upon life appearing spontaneously from non-living matter.

So you believe there are two kinds of matter - living and non-living?

You're "science" is almost 200 years out of date.

[allmendream]

Who says I have “faith in the secular”?

[Christopher Lincoln]

This is a vastly greater problem for any theory opposed to evolution, which must explain, not one origin, but millions of separate origins.

[dan1123]

People who assert evolution have a fundamental problem: origins.

Exactly. Evolution would be identical to creation if you allowed for multiple recent origin points and extremely focused, rapid evolution postscripted by an extended stabilization period caused by the maturing genome. I have a feeling that the theory of evolution will eventually become this way and scientists will deny there are any theological implications of the changing theory.