Replies

"There is (protein molecules are formed in various natural ways) but no truly living cell has yet been produced in the lab. What of it?"

There is no evidence of inanimate objects evolving into any animated form whatsoever. This means that there is utterly no EVIDENCE to support the first required step of the Evolutionary Process on an inanimate planet.

In science, one should be a bit suspicious of any theory that fails to find evidence to support the very first step of said theory.

I see, however, that you have religiousesque FAITH is said theory even without said evidence. That's fine, but call your beliefs religion because they aren't based upon tangible scientific evidence.

There is no evidence of inanimate objects evolving into any animated form whatsoever. This means that there is utterly no EVIDENCE to support the first required step of the Evolutionary Process on an inanimate planet.

Let's Amend that statement. There is no DIRECT evidence to support that first step. However, there are indirect steps all over the universe that sure lead me to believe that all we have to do is continue looking. For example, deep in the heart of giant million solar mass molecular clouds, astronomers have been finding complex organic molecules. If organic molecules can form out in the middle of nowehere through simple collisional processes, who is to say that complex organic molecules didn't form here on earth? Is it such a leap to bridge the gap between intermediate complex molecules to the really complex things like amino acids and DNA? I don't think so. I definitely think we have to KEEP LOOKING! The data is out there to support abiogenesis, we just have to find it.

I see, however, that you have religiousesque FAITH is said theory even without said evidence. That's fine, but call your beliefs religion because they aren't based upon tangible scientific evidence.

What you seem to call faith, I would call Inductive Reasoning. It is an important step in any theoretical endeavor.

I see, however, that you have religiousesque FAITH is said theory even without said evidence. That's fine, but call your beliefs religion because they aren't based upon tangible scientific evidence.

There is a tremendous amount of scientific evidence for evolution. On the other hand, Genesis falls down rather badly when it comes to the order of creation. It has plants being formed before the sun or the moon was in the sky.

When I go out to the creationist web sites or listen to the Christian radio programs, I find it quite amazing the lengths that are taken to try and fit the observed phenomena and current day discoveries into the mold described by Genesis. For example, geologists long ago rejected a worldwide flood, however, fantastic explanations abound in the creationist circles to try and re-establish this as an actual event.

Genesis is not a scientific description of the formation of this universe. In fact from a scientific viewpoint Genesis is wrong.