To: Pharmboy
Getting inert molecules to reproduce and thus lay the groundwork for more complex life forms is the modern version...obviously much more sophisticated. The last part of your sentence here being the key parrt. No one is suggesting that complex life forms arose suddenly from nothing. Here we have a testable theory of how certain organic molecules arose. This has nothing to do antiquated spontaneous generation concepts.
What suggestion would you make for the scientific research of the origins of life on earth, if you do not find this research to be adequate?
17 posted on
11/04/2005 6:04:14 AM PST by
Quark2005
(Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
To: Quark2005
Look...you're reading me completely wrong. I am someone who is very interested in the history of science. I am also a Darwinist, and have been such my whole life. There are plenty of creationists around for you to fight with, so go get 'em. And, in the future, I will be very careful about linking modern scientific events to those in history...point taken. And, you might want to switch to decaf.
20 posted on
11/04/2005 6:09:47 AM PST by
Pharmboy
(The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson