Replies

> Are you implying that evolutionary models have done the basics for showing how chemistry has done the evolution model?

Non sequitur. Please try to keep up.

> Darwinists won't admit the warts on Darwinism

I'm not sure how many "Darwinists" there are these days. "Evolutionists," sure, but not too many "Darwinists."

> there are those that just "parrot" Darwinistic dogma

Creationists?

>>>
> Leaving biogenesis out of the whole evolution thing does one thing that is fascinating...

Yup. It shows how chemistry, workign independantly of any biological or intelligent influenece, given time and energy, can create all manner of interesting order and chaos. Or did you mean... <<<

Ahhh, you made a claim about the mechanism for biogenesis and then ran away. Is that the kind of keeping up you want me to do? Personally I don't mind that kind of foolishness. EVO/CREVO threads do it all the time.

Of course it is non sequitur, if you redefine non sequitur to include: I don't like the logic of my statement, don't bring it up.

>>I'm not sure how many "Darwinists" there are these days. "Evolutionists," sure, but not too many "Darwinists." <<

Now you're denying Natural Selection as a mechanism too! Woo hoo! Let's have a party!

EVOLUTIONIST DENIES NATURAL SELECTION
News at eleven.

Evolutionary theory is now: Things change.

DK