[Recovering_Democrat]

As that was posted to me, I'll answer it yet again...

Another error. My post 210 was addressed to jwalsh07, not you.

But I welcome your attempt to explain away the obvious. Post 111 clearly shows evolutionists attempting to explain the origins of life. Even the article by the evolutionist at the beginning of the post speaks to that fact. And the existence of the ISSOL (I think that is the acronym) shows evolution trying to 'splain the origin of life.

Your attempt to separate the idea that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life is funny to me, though. Especially in the face of repeated references in post 111.

[js1138]

I'm not really in this particular debate, but I am curious: what is wrong with investigating the origin of life?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Another error. My post 210 was addressed to jwalsh07, not you."

And as the passage I quoted was this:

"Check out post 111. I give numerous evidences via published articles and links of evolutionists trying to explain the origin of life--"

and post 111 WAS most definitely posted to me, it was YOUR error, not mine.

"Post 111 clearly shows evolutionists attempting to explain the origins of life."

It shows SCIENTISTS who are attempting to explain the origins of life. As over 95% of working scientists accept evolution, what do you think the odds are that these ones would too? Calling them *evolutionists* does not tell us anything about their field of study, as almost all scientists are *evolutionists*. That you can't understand the difference is your problem, not mine.

"Your attempt to separate the idea that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life is funny to me, though."

Seek therapy, because it is not rational to find so much humor in your own mistakes.