Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: IronJack
It is specious to argue that the universe formed the idea of Man first, then asked itself "What kind of environment do I need to create to sustain this particular form of life?"

It seem more likely that every possible kind of universe exists simultaneously, for whatever that's worth.

45 posted on 01/30/2006 5:49:41 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: js1138

I suppose if time were infinite, evolutionists would claim life always existed. But the limited time allows probabibility to make powerful scientific arguments against evolution. Even Shapiro and Wilson state "although the idea was entertained at one time, it is now considered highly unlikely that a chance assemblage of prebiotic molecules could have been the source of the first bacteriumlike organisms.
The odds are overwhelmingly against it. Even these simplest of organisms are amazingly COMPLEX BIOLOGICAL MACHINES (sound familiar? and yet this term was first used by an evolutionist) that must be immensely more sophisticated than transitional forms that are thought to have bridged the gap between nonliving and living matter.
But how do evolutionists answer this question of How did the first one-celled creatures arise? Since they are too complex to form by spontaneous generation, they must be the products of evolution from even simpler beings.

This answer is absurd on it's face. A straight forward reading by any mildly honest and intelligent reader must bring hysterical laughter as evolutionists continue to be backed into the corner . They have lived by naturalism and they will die by it.


79 posted on 02/08/2006 7:53:41 AM PST by caffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson