Evolutionist can't answer the most important question of all

42

--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels

Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:28:35 +1000, "Clayton Doesn't Believe In Sex Before
Rigor-Mortis" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...


Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 30 Jun 2005 15:02:29 -0000, wrote:


Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
life.

Are you really this stupid, or just being dishonest?

1. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist".

There is no mafia neither ;-)


2. Evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life.

Without an Origin of life, evolution can not be discussed.

3. Abiogenesis research has discovered more than you realise.


And it still can't be done in a test tube.


What....is there a fourth grade outing on the Usenet today? You don't seem
to have the most fundamental understanding of either science or logic....so
you're pretty much making a fool of yourself!

But isn't making fools of themselves what creationists do best?

goozlefotz wrote:

The worst mistake creationists make is to equate complaints about the
theory of evolution with support for creationism. It seems that their
view is to discredit any scientific hypotheses and TADA! what is left
is creation. A crummy way at best to support a theory!

It's all they've got. Grin.



wrote:
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
life.

So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different"!

Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
facts.

El Bleacho wrote:
wrote:
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different"!

Well, the Miller Experiement was worthless. When it can be proven that
aboigenesis can be reproduced in a laboratory experiment, or that Big Bang
could have had a beginning without a Beginner;

How is this biology?


I am done with Intelligent
Design. Untill then, the athiest approach of "it was all a random
fluke" just does not seem scientific enough.

Not a fluke -- natural selection. Very un-flukey.

~Iain

goozlefotz wrote:
The worst mistake creationists make is to equate complaints about the
theory of evolution with support for creationism. It seems that their
view is to discredit any scientific hypotheses and TADA! what is left
is creation. A crummy way at best to support a theory!

wrote:

Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer
is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of
life-from which we are all supposed to have descended-come into
existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a
problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from
decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce
mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis
Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting
life.

So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to
the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy
sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What
about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia
explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under
the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.
Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions
on the earth were far different"!

Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap
between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael
Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a
living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such
as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as
it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could
come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be
impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in
that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the
facts.



That's the problem with the creatoids. They've got to play with what
they've got.

Seppo P.