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

To: f.Christian
That is a really big EXCEPT---the prime initiator!

Sure, it's an infinite difference, but what science needs to ask is whether evolution as currently taught can explain everything that has happened since, depending on your point of view, one second after (1) creation; or (2) the appearance of the first thing that can be called life. I would argue that the theory of evolution comes up short.

My training and most of my work career has been in the fields of chemistry and chemical engineering. The theory of evolution kind of looks okay at the macro level, but at the level of chemistry it sure seems to fall apart.

In other words, one doesn't need God to poke holes in the theory of evolution. It's not an issue of theology but rather of science.

45 posted on 11/20/2002 5:34:32 PM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: DallasMike
Even theology admits the mother of all science is philosophy---it is inescapable!

Evolutions skips all three!

46 posted on 11/20/2002 5:37:28 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: DallasMike
Evolution is the study of how living animals change over time.

How living animals were originally created is not part of that specific field of study.

You are correct in stating that the origin of first life would be a chemistry and/or theology field of study.

50 posted on 11/20/2002 5:40:59 PM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: DallasMike
My training and most of my work career has been in the fields of chemistry and chemical engineering. The theory of evolution kind of looks okay at the macro level, but at the level of chemistry it sure seems to fall apart.

Not just at the chemical level. At the biological level it falls apart, specifically at the development of a 100 trillion cell organism from a single cell and all that implies. It also breaks down at the logical level. Let's consider this - there are many ways in which organisms reproduce - sexually, asexually, eggs, livebearing, seeds, pollen, fruits, etc. How is it possible for a species to transform the way it reproduces and still be able to continue to exist while this change goes on. Specifically let's consider the change from (as evolutionists claim) egg laying reptiles to live bearing mammals? How did this transformation occur while the species kept reproducing? This is a transformation which required numerous changes in the organism, not just one little change. It is a transformation which would have required millions and millions of years at the least. How could the species have kept reproducing while such a change went on when we know that even fairly small differences in the genetic makeup make it impossible for different species to reproduce with each other? How could such a thing have happened? Not a single evolutionist will say.

Oh, and one more thing:

NO, THERE ARE NO BONES SHOWING THIS HAPPENING

71 posted on 11/20/2002 8:21:50 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | 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