To: Carling
You can’t tell me scientifically how life was originated, either, nor can you replicate it in a lab.Has nothing to do with evolution.
12 posted on
08/31/2011 8:32:06 PM PDT by
GunRunner
(***Not associated with any criminal actions by the ATF***)
To: GunRunner
Of course it does. Without origin of life, evolutionary theory is faulty in its premise.
117 posted on
08/31/2011 11:35:30 PM PDT by
Carling
(DeMint to Obama: I want to read the bill, not listen to talking points off a TelePrompter.)
To: GunRunner
Has nothing to do with evolution. But you gotta have it FIRST; right?
150 posted on
09/01/2011 5:28:31 AM PDT by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
To: GunRunner; Carling
c:
You can’t tell me scientifically how life was originated, either, nor can you replicate it in a lab. GR:Has nothing to do with evolution.
What did the first living organism evolve from?
Or did it just pop into existence?
What criteria do you use to distinguish and differentiate life from non-life? When did the first living organism become living?
164 posted on
09/01/2011 7:14:24 AM PDT by
metmom
(Be the kind of woman that when you wake in the morning, Satan says, "Oh crap. She's UP!")
To: GunRunner
Has nothing to do with evolution. Well, it sort of does actually, under the broader rubric of naturalistic explanations for life and its propagation. If life did not originate naturalistically, then there's much less of a logical reason to assume all of the rest of the naturalistic baggage that comes later.
171 posted on
09/01/2011 8:16:39 AM PDT by
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson