[carl in alaska]

"Evolution has nothing to do with how the first life forms came into being."

Not true. I took a class at UC San Diego called "Biochemical Evolution". The entire class was about how the first life forms could have come into being. The arguments were not very convincing. When I have a little more time, I'll try to explain some of the scientific arguments against evolution and for ID. Right now I have to get some rest.

[Dimensio]

Not true. I took a class at UC San Diego called "Biochemical Evolution". The entire class was about how the first life forms could have come into being.

SO you took a class by professors who misrepresented the theory of evolution, or they were using the term "Biochemical evolution" to refer to the fact that they were speaking of other than the traditional theory of evolution. This proves nothing except that you are unable to comprehend the fact that because the theory deals with existing life forms, it has nothign to do with how those life forms came into being.

Why is it that when I bring up various possible scenarios under which the first life forms could have come to being as demonstration that evolution says nothing on the ultimate origins of life that creationists who insist upon repeating that lie refuse to address it? It's like the deliberately ignore it because it totally defeats their argument. Again, it matters not if the first life forms came about through an electrical charge in amino acids, were brought to Earth by interdimensional life forms, were seeded on earth by time-travellers or were zap-poofed into existence by a divine agent. When dealing with evolution, it does not matter which of those processes, if any, brought the first life forms onto this planet.