Replies

". . . check out Post #13, to which I replied. That Freeper said evolutionary theory explains the origin of life, not me. What a dope. . . ."

Well I'm the "dope" who put up post #13 and this is what it said in its entirety:

"There are two things that must be separated when dealing with Darwin's Theory of Evolution; evolutionary change as the origin of species and natural selection as the engine of evolutionary change. There is almost no serious debate within the scientific community about whether evolutionary change is responsible for the origin of new species. But there is a very serious debate about whether natural selection is the means by which that change is effected.

Though I must confess I read the above article at a much more rapid speed than I should have to give a proper commentary, it seems to me that by raising real problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as the means of evolutionary change it attempts to challenge the Theory of Evolution itself as the origin of species, though it does not say so outright. This is problematic, because any challenge to the Theory of Evolution must present an alternative, which I do not see proposed in the above article."

There is quite a bit about the "origin of species" but absolutely nothing about the "origin of life." So if you have problems reading the English language, please be careful who you call a "dope."

My apologies for lack of clarity - you are not the one I was referring to.

But you proved my point to orion..., I was not the one who made the assertion. I suspect he has since traced it back to your post and discovered his error.

By the way, just to clear the air on the subject of the "Origin of Life."

Because God, however defined, must be considered the "first cause" of the creation of the universe, something on which I agree with both Newton and Einstein, God must be credited with the "Origin of Life." This in no way contradicts the Theory of Evolution.