Replies

I refer everyone to either posts 111 or 220, where I provide ample evidence of evolutionists attempting to explain the origins of life... something Carolina says evolution doesn't do.

I've looked them over, and I conclude that you're extremely confused, and have trouble with basic reading comprehension.

You owe CarolinaGuitarman a large apology.

Your material in no way contradicts what CarolinaGuitarman actually said. It only contradicts what you MISUNDERSTOOD him to say.

He said, correctly, that evolution does not address the origin of life. He's right, it doesn't. Nowhere does he say what you falsely claim he said -- he never said that evolutionists don't attempt to explain the origins of life.

It's not a difficult distinction, but you seem to be having enormous trouble grasping it.

Evolution is, in a nutshell, the process of descent with variation, and the interactions which affect that. Without "descent" -- i.e. without reproduction -- no evolution occurs. Rocks don't evolve, because they don't reproduce. And whatever process(es) brought about the first living thing(s) (whether involving any "designers" or not), it didn't involve evolution, because evolution could not occur *until* a thing came into existence that could reproduce. Thus, evolution doesn't deal with how life came about -- life came about by other kinds of processes, of a non-evolutionary kind.

Nor does "evolution" as a field of science address the origin of life, because it studies, not surprisingly, evolutionary processes, and again the origin of life is outside of these processes.

CarolinaGuitarman spoke correctly when he wrote,

"Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life."
"None of which supports your claim that the ToE includes the origins of life. They are separate, as the links you provided showed."
"Evolutionary theory doesn't include the origins of life, as your posts showed. Evolutionary theory cannot say anything about pre-life that is not an imperfect self-replicator."
"Just because someone accepts evolution doesn't mean everything they study is evolutionary biology. The origins of life are not included in the ToE, and have never been."
"It was an explanation for the origins AND the early evolution of life. They were separated, as they are separate fields undertaken by different people using different techniques and different theoretical models."
"It showed scientists studying the origins of life using something OTHER than the ToE to do so. They are using biochemistry, not Darwin."
"And nothing on that list shows anybody using the ToE to investigate the origins of life."

He was as clear as could possibly be, and you STILL misunderstood him.

He's saying, correctly, that the ToE (Theory of Evolution) doesn't, and can't address the processes which led to the original formation of life. Other fields (most nobably biochemistry) are engaged in order to study those processes.

YOU, on the other hand, kept prancing around like a silly goose, over the unremarkable fact that scientists who are interested in evolutionary processes are also often interested in the separate processes by which life first formed. This is hardly surprising, and it in no way contradicts anything CarolinaGuitarman said -- it doesn't magically turn the field of biogenesis into being the same as the field of evolutionary biology, because they aren't.

Again, you owe him an apology.

The *only* thing he wrote that might reasonably be able to be misconstrued was, "Evolutionary biologists don't study the origins of life, biochemists do", but this comment was not written in isolation -- in context with all of his other remarks, it's entirely clear to anyone with working reading comprehension that he was saying that while biologists who have an interest in evolution (or may even study in the field of evolutionary biology) may also sometimes study the origin of life, they don't use the field of evolutionary biology to do it -- they use biochemistry, because that's the field that addresses the processes at work before the first reproducing living things were finally in place, as he made clear when he wrote, "It was an explanation for the origins AND the early evolution of life. They were separated, as they are separate fields undertaken by different people using different techniques and different theoretical models."

...and yet still you misunderstood it, and used your misunderstanding as a cheap excuse to prance and ridicule and insult and point and laugh like a schoolgirl.

Again, you owe CarolinaGuitarman a large apology. Are you honorable enough to do it?