[YHAOS]



Well, there would have to be a third way to explain life origins, since the theory of evolution does not cover life origins.

That’s what I thought too; that the theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life. But, I don’t think Harvard is expecting to explore a third theory of origins (at least no such third theory was mentioned), so there must be some degree of confusion existing in someone’s mind at Harvard. I don’t know that anyone is lying up there, but, properly, doesn’t origins belong in the philosophy or the theology dpt? Yet the Science Dpt seems to be all over the subject.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of repeating a lie. Creationists never do.

If I ever do (lie), I’m sure you’ll be the very first to let me know, and that you will justly rule on differences over disputed facts or matters of opinion. I’m a Presbyterian, by the way.

[Dimensio]

That’s what I thought too; that the theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life.

Then you were right.

But, I don’t think Harvard is expecting to explore a third theory of origins (at least no such third theory was mentioned), so there must be some degree of confusion existing in someone’s mind at Harvard.

On what do you base this? A USA Today article? Can you actually quote one of the Harvard scientists in stating that the theory of evolution covers the ultimate origin of life or are you just going to continue asserting that such a connection was made without providing any actual evidence?

Yet the Science Dpt seems to be all over the subject.

Is this your evidence? That the origin of life is studied at all is what links it to the theory of evolution?