[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>Well, when they release a commercial that starts out with a tired and old false argument against evolution, they should expect some criticism.<<

Do you mean the question, “How did life begin?” I think that’s a pretty good question, and you may be convinced that science can answer that question, but I am not.

I have not seen the movie, so I don’t know if arguments against it are valid or not, but I don’t have any problem with the commercial I have seen.

[MrB]

Some scientist attempted the experiment with the “lucky lightning strike” and got some “organic chemicals” to form.

However, not only has his “primordial soup” been refuted as what actually existed at the proposed pre-life time,

his “organic chemicals” were chemicals like formaldehyde that are hostile to life.

[Shryke]

Do you mean the question, “How did life begin?” I think that’s a pretty good question, and you may be convinced that science can answer that question, but I am not.

That is the question, exactly. And it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Oh, I know, all the creationists here want to say that it does, over and over, endlessly, but it doesn't. Life must exist already for evolution to occur. There is no way around it. The idea that life sprang from some random event (and lifeless compounds) is called "abiogensis". NOT "evolution".