To: CarolinaGuitarman
Because it's scope doesn't include the origin of life, and never has? How difficult is this for you to comprehend? Pretty difficult, actually. I believe that the very first living thing was a species, bless it's little heart. Don't you kind of feel sorry for it, all alone out there with no explanation )-;
It doesn't explain quantum physics either. Is that a deficiency in the theory?
No. That would be an imaginary deficiency. There are enough real deficiencies to worry about. :-)
To: GSHastings
I believe that the very first living thing was a species, bless it's little heart. Don't you kind of feel sorry for it, all alone out there with no explanation )-;
Do you have an argument against evolution that isn't based purely in semantic games?
497 posted on
08/16/2005 11:18:20 PM PDT by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: GSHastings
" Pretty difficult, actually. I believe that the very first living thing was a species, bless it's little heart."
And that would be abiogenesis, not evolution that would deal with that. Demanding that evolution explain the origin of life is willful ignorance.
510 posted on
08/17/2005 6:07:37 AM PDT by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson