Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dbbeebs
...that first living form would have to evolve out of that inanimate, lifeless environment for Evolutionary theory to be taken seriously.


"This statement isn't true. I'm sorry that your personal incredulity doesn't allow you to process mainstream scientific theories." - dbbeebs

Nonsense! Of course my statement above is true.

We started with a lifeless planet, yes or no?

How did we FIRST get life on that lifeless planet?

If one discounts Intelligent Design and insists upon Darwinism, then life MUST have first evolved from purely inanimate objects.

But hey, you claim that what I said isn't true, so why don't YOU explain where that first life evolved from if not from inanimate objects!

Oh yeah, that little challenge means that you will have to flee this debate because there is NO WAY that you can answer said task.

Buh bye.

213 posted on 09/27/2001 2:41:41 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]


To: Southack
Buh bye.

Evolution is silent on life's origins. But you knew that.

247 posted on 09/27/2001 4:51:53 PM PDT by dbbeebs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
Of course my statement above is true.

You're right. Life did "spring" from non-life. You've saying that to be valid,
the ToE must address that. I'm saying that's wrong. But you knew that.

258 posted on 09/27/2001 5:39:45 PM PDT by dbbeebs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson