Posted on 06/08/2009 9:20:49 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Viral Life from Outer Space? Not Likely.
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Since a whole, functioning cell could not possibly emerge spontaneously from non-living matter, many evolutionists believe that simpler viruses were the first step towards the development of life. Researchers in Finland conducted a test on the survivability of viruses inside bacterial spores, which some scientists hypothesize may have travelled through space on meteoroids to seed life on earth. What the study discovered, however, is that life springing from space-borne viruses was highly unlikely.
The question of life’s beginnings has been vexing to Darwin’s supporters. After a lifetime of speculating on naturalistic scenarios for the origin of life on earth, famous Russian evolutionist A. I. Oparin...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
All of Adam's, all of Eve's, etc.
“The usual creationist tactic of misdirection, next is going to come the name-calling”
You accuse others of what you do in your reply. Look in the mirror about straw men and falsehood and questions avoided.
Of course I really don't expect any self examination of just what you're saying in this last reply. Accusing creationists of dishonesty and ignorance probably keeps you busy.
““Name a gene that shows no sign of an evolutionary origin”
All of Adam’s, all of Eve’s, etc.”
Really? What tissue sample did you analyze?
Could you please be so kind as to provide supporting evidence to your answer regarding the gene that shows no sign of an evolutionary origin?
Have you ever seen a post of mine where I resorted to name-calling?
Also please provide an example of a post of mine that uses a straw man or misdirection.
As far as you’re statement about creationist being dishonest or ignorant what other explanation is there for an obvious misstatement of fact?
His premise that an experiment failed to support a hypothesis, provides no evidence to support his creationist stance.
Saying that my neighbor’s wife is ugly is not proof that I am married to a beauty queen.
“As far as you’re statement about creationist being dishonest or ignorant what other explanation is there for an obvious misstatement of fact”
That was YOUR statement. Attributing to me what you said is misdirection, and saying there is no other explanation for a statement other than being ignorant or dishonest for what YOU call a misstatement of fact is name calling, isn't it?
“His premise that an experiment failed to support a hypothesis, provides no evidence to support his creationist stance.”
A straw man. I didn't make the argument that it did. Take that up with someone else.
“Could you please be so kind as to provide supporting evidence to your answer regarding the gene that shows no sign of an evolutionary origin?”
Genesis 2:7.
“Saying that my neighbor’s wife is ugly is not proof that I am married to a beauty queen.”
Do you have any evidence that the concepts of “ugly” and “beauty” are anything but cultural constructs?
Yes, God is the prime mover. His method is likely beyond our understanding. However, he gave us the brains to try to figure it out. He’d be disappointed if we didn’t try.
Thank God creation rationalization is not taught as science.
Uh-huh, and how do you rationalize how He feels when liberals demand He has no place in his own creation/science class?
I can base many beliefs on what true science has shown. You show very little understanding of mathematics, and DNA coding when you blindly continue to defend evolution.
he link provided will answer that question.
“You show very little understanding...”
Really? I visited your profile, and I can assure you that you’re a piker in comparison.
You state that you were raised Catholic, but became a Christian when you turned 18. Do you not consider Catholics to be Christian? At least you also perform litmus tests on yourself!
“Uh-huh, and how do you rationalize how He feels when liberals demand He has no place in his own creation/science class?”
I have no objection to teaching religion in school. Just don’t teach it as science. Creation rationalization is not science.
Darwin and his followers fit your ‘name-calling’ far more than I. At least I completed my studies and am employed in a field utilizing my higher education. What do any of us really know about Buck W?
Furthermore, Mr. Darwin never shows any emperical science and got his conclusions all wrong for we now know that even micro-evolution is actually devolution or a loss of DNA encoded complexity. I think he would be more apt to admit the failure of his theory than any/all of his fanatics posting here at FR. Afterall didn’t he say that w/o finding thousands on missing links in the fossil record his theory completely falls apart? Keep digging...
BTW I’ve updated my homepage to be more technically correct. No matter what type of Christian one is known as, only God knows the true condition of our hearts.
Good day sir!
Who said anything about teaching religion in science class? That’s your strawman.
BTW the evo-cult is just as much a religion as anything liberals rail on and on about.
The core of an iron asteroid would not. Only the outer basaltic mass would ablate. (See the Arizona crater). The impact would not generate heat but a kinematic transfer of energy to an inert object ejecting all of the mass of the impactor and the impact surface. Spores would survive.
Who cares about Darwin? Evolution has “evolved” so much since his time that he wouldn’t recognize it. That’s good science. Has creation rationalization changed?
You’re follow the typical liberal pattern of setting up a convenient person to be vilified and the associating a class with that person. You use Darwin, the left uses Limbaugh. Is there really any difference between extreme liberalism and creation rationalization?
Not at all. The faith of Creation rationalizers is just too weak to accept science.
You did. Go back and read your post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.