You know since I first heard it I have been bothered by that label of evolutionist or evolutionism....
I would prefer to say that I accept that the ToE is the best current naturalistic explanation of the evidence...
I would not call myself an evolutionist as if sufficient developments occurred I would be able to reassess my position something that a subscriber to "evolutionism" presumably wouldn't....
quote:
John Paul:
"IF life originated via purely natural processes then why is it so hard for us to duplicate that feat in a lab, under ideal conditions?"
gene90:
Because "ideal conditions" just happens to be an enormous number of "random" reactions (not "really" random of course because they follow the laws of chemistry) occurring over millions of years of time, an experimental setup not available to researchers. Alternatively we could try to build one, molecule by molecule, but that technology does not yet exist.
John Paul:
Thank you. You are proving my point.
you asked a question the content of which was if it was possible we would conduct the experiment so why dont we?
Gene replies we cant conduct the experiment (due to the huge scale required)...
how has he proved your point?
[This message has been edited by joz, 01-14-2002]
™ Version 4.2