[PatrickHenry]

For years around here the evolutionist side of the debate insisted that abiogenesis was NOT part of the theory of evolution. The source information and analysis backed up the assertion quite well.

Nothing's changed that I'm aware of. People can do research into that topic, but it's not evolution. As you know, evolution is what happens when there is reproduction, variation, and selection. I suppose it can apply to some kind of precursor to life, perhaps non-living but self-replicating organic molecules (if that makes sense), but as to how the first self-replicating molecule appeared, that's probably rooted in organic chemistry.

Darwin neither asked nor answered the question "what is life v non-life/death in nature". He didn't offer a theory of abiogenesis. He took life as a "given" and addressed the speciation.

True.

What's the deal, PatrickHenry? Has the evolutionist side of the debate now switched horses and accepted the assertion of the numerous (and now banned) posters who argued too passionately that abiogenesis was part and parcel of the Darwin's theory of evolution ...

Not that I'm aware of. Occasional rhetorical flourishes by a freeper, or even a biologist, don't change the basic nature of a science.

... (and therefore theologically speaking, completely unacceptable to every Abrahamic religion?)

You lost me. Anyway, the answer to that last part is "no" because the answer to the premise was "no."

[js1138]

... (and therefore theologically speaking, completely unacceptable to every Abrahamic religion?)

I missed that part. I don't get the "therefore". If every fact of science that conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis threatens the foundations of religion, then religion and science really are at war.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for confirming that things have not changed on the evolution side of the debate!

And yes, ahayes, I'm aware that individuals on either side of the debate have conflicting views with their own side - which is fine, except it "threw me" to see your position evidently embraced by an old-timer, js1138. Anytime a js1138, PatrickHenry or other oldtimer says something new, it gets my attention.

me: ... (and therefore theologically speaking, completely unacceptable to every Abrahamic religion?)

you: You lost me. Anyway, the answer to that last part is "no" because the answer to the premise was "no."

It was one of their fiercest arguments to other Christians around here (which would apply the Judaism and Islam as well) - that evolution necessarily requires a belief in abiogenesis and therefore a disbelief in a Creator, i.e. a drift to Deism or Eastern theology. The counter-argument of course was that the theory of evolution does not address the question of abiogenesis v biogenesis.