[Ichneumon]

I stand by posts of 111 and 220, and I believe an open minded person looking at them would conclude they are examples of evolutionists trying to explain the origins of life.

That's because they are examples of *that*, but unfortunately that doesn't help your cheap and baseless attacks on CarolinaGuitarman, because that doesn't contradict what he *actually* said -- it only contradicts what you MISUNDERSTOOD him to say.

So far five open-minded persons have looked at your silly posts and *ALL* have concluded that you're off the rails: CarolinaGuitarman, ml1954, js1138, SaveUS, and Ichneumon. Getting a clue yet?

Ready to apologize to him yet?

So the argument that evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life is a distinction without a difference.

Again you completely misunderstand what is being said to you. It is a distinction with a difference, and the fact that some scientists choose to study BOTH doesn't change that in the least.

Your comment is as inane and flawed as trying to claim that electric cars and diesel locomotives are "a distinction without a difference" just because many engineers study or write about both topics. Do you realize how goofy that sounds?

[js1138]

Obviously, some people have based their religion and their worldview on the necessity of vitalism. They have surrendered one concept after another over the centuries -- the unmoving earth, the young earth, the direct creation of species -- and now they face the demystification of life itself.

I personally don't care if they confuse biogenesis with evolution. They are opposed to thought in general and consider science to be a form of blasphemy. I appreciate your essays and learn from them, but the nominal object of your attention is impervious to learning.

[Recovering_Democrat]

see post 253.