Replies

Ain't it the truth. The fundamental law of biology is that life cannot emanate from non-life. Yet evolutionary hypothesis says that's exactly what happened.

Evolutionary hypothesis says life began under conditions that cannot be reproduced. If it cannot be reproduced, then it cannot be demonstrated. That means it (evolutionary hypothesis) is unscientific.

The fact is, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.

The fundamental law of biology is that life cannot emanate from non-life.

It is?! Please cite your source for this "fundamental law." Also, please define "life." I believe it is integral to the discussion.

Yet evolutionary hypothesis says that's exactly what happened.

It does?! Please cite your source for this statement. (although I could save you some time: You are wrong.) Evolutionary THEORY says nothing of the origin of life. Please focus on what evolution actually is, not what you wrongly think it is.

Why the hangup with calling evolution a theory? It moved far beyond "hypothesis" about 150 years ago. You need to update your library, in my opinion.

The fact is, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.

So you are an adherent to that religion who eschews all doctors in favor of prayer?

Ain't it the truth. The fundamental law of biology is that life cannot emanate from non-life. Yet evolutionary hypothesis says that's exactly what happened.
Evolutionary hypothesis says life began under conditions that cannot be reproduced. If it cannot be reproduced, then it cannot be demonstrated. That means it (evolutionary hypothesis) is unscientific.

The fact is, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.

You may want to look at the work of Urey and Miller in 1953 for starters, and do some Google searches for more recent works, such as http://www.origins.rpi.edu/chem.html. That will be a good starting place for you. Your first sentence and following statements would have been accurate in the mid to late 1800s versus.

The fact is, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.

In discussions like this, we should be careful about our terminology, so that we're all using words in the same way. I've posted this before, but not for at least 6 months, and I think it's useful:

One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his own mother. Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof. The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence. There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from logical proof. In either case, that is, belief in things evidenced by sensory evidence or demonstrated by logical proof, there is no need for faith.

In between mother and the Pythagorean theorem are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are scientific theories -- logical and falsifiable explanations of the available data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence).

Useful website in this context: Do You Believe in Evolution?.