[metmom]

What I get is that evolutionists won't accept abiogenesis as part of evolution, yet they are intrinsically interconnected; the end point of abiogenesis is the beginning point of evolution. Evolution is just the continuation of the same process only dealing with the self-replicating forms of chemical compounds. By definitions given here on FR, abiogenesis is the process of the formation of life, evolution is the process of life changing, however, you can't have evolution without abiogenesis and you're still stuck with two problems. One is the definition of life and where to make that distinction; the other is that spontaneous generation has already been disproved. So evolutionists can't afford to include abiogenesis in their theory because the spontaneous generation complication would reduce the whole theory to a smoking pile of rubble. Manipulating definitions and making arbitrary distinctions between theories just to prop one up is what's intellectually dishonest.

[LiberalGunNut]

(Manipulating definitions and making arbitrary distinctions between theories just to prop one up is what's intellectually dishonest.)

Ironic you say this because that is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are redefining evolution in your own mind. Let me try again:

First, you are getting your terms wrong. Abiogenesis is not in of itself a theory. It simply means the generation of life from non living matter. There really is no dispute that we are essentially made of Carbon and other assorted elements, which is non-living matter. There are many theories as to how these elements that we are made of were formed together. Those theories fall into the realm of CHEMISTRY, not BIOLOGY. None of them have anything to do with evolution. Evolution is a biological theory and therefore does not deal with non-living matter.

Let me try this example:

Scientific evidence makes it more likely than not that OJ Simpson killed his wife. If we one day found out that OJ's father wasn't his REAL father, would that have any bearing on whether or not he killed Nicole Brown? THe only way that evidence could be thrown out is if we came to the conclusion that a man named Orenthal James SImpson never existed.

We have to stipulate that OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown were living existing humans before we can talk about the murders. How they they arrived on the planet earth is irrelevant.

So THe Theory of OJ killing Nicole has nothing to do with the ORIGIN OF OJ SIMPSON. If OJ were adopted, the Theory of OJ Killing Nicole still stands, if OJ was rocketed to earth from the planet krypton, HE STILL KILLED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. If Johnnie Cochran tried to introduce evidence of OJ's parentage, he would be laughed out of court.

Is that clear now?