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


1 posted on 06/08/2009 9:20:49 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 06/08/2009 9:21:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts

>>The question of life’s beginnings has been vexing to Darwin’s supporters. <<

No, people who understand TToE also know that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the Theory.

Your WWN sister rag’s, Bat Boy story can’t even get a simple fact right.


4 posted on 06/08/2009 9:23:33 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
Funniest argument evo's have. "Life came from outer space". They don't even seem to ask themselves where THAT came from.

It's like the old idea of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a turtle sitting on the back of a
7 posted on 06/08/2009 9:34:07 AM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out (click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
Since a whole, functioning cell could not possibly emerge spontaneously from non-living matter, many evolutionists believe that simpler viruses were the first step towards the development of life.

Strawman.

Most biologists believe that life originated in replicating molecules resulting from organic molecules already existing on earth and in space.

Viruses are much too complicated. Prions probably are too.

21 posted on 06/08/2009 10:10:11 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
Not only was the question of the origin of life ‘vexing’ to Darwinists it was very much on their minds.
Like the question of the origin of the universe is part of astronomy so too origin of life questions are a part of Darwinism.

In fact, Thomas Huxley's famous essay on life's origins show just how important a part of evolutionary theory the question is.

Said Huxley (in part:

“And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions, which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter. I should expect to see it appear under forms of great simplicity, endowed, like existing fungi, with the power of determining the formation of new protoplasm from such matters as ammonium carbonates, oxalates and tartrates, alkaline and earthy phosphates, and water, without the aid of light. That is the expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith.”
(Biogenesis and Abiogenesis 1870 Essay)

Huxley was well thought of by Darwin for his zeal in propagating the “Gospel” of evolution so when Huxley speaks of the ‘evolution of life from non-living matter’ he speaks
like a high priest in The Temple of Darwinism.

Now as then, life from inert matter is an “act of philosophical faith”.

40 posted on 06/08/2009 11:35:20 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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