Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not Abiogenesis
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 162 of 251 (654680)
03-02-2012 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by subbie
02-29-2012 12:20 AM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
Not really, because you don’t show enough knowledge of what ID actually is. Motivation of a designer isn’t formally involved.
I have two different, but related, responses to this point.
First, no, of course it's not formally involved, because ID is a religious movement trying to camouflage itself as science. We al know that the only designer that the ID movement has in mind is an Abrahamic god. For them to openly discuss motives would let the cat out of the bag. (Not that it's much of a secret, but at least they can pretend they're not talking about their god.)
Just like we all know that the naturalism in evolution is atheism. All I ever hear is that the mere existence of theistic evolutionists disproves that. It doesn’t, especially since theistic evolutionists clearly agree with atheists on just about everything. A non active God is right next to a non existent God.
marc9000 writes:
As more and more conclusions are drawn about what evolution is, what it has done, more and more philosophy creeps in.
I really have no idea what you mean here. Can you clarify or provide examples?
It’s a reference to what you agreed with me on, when you said;
quote:
If by that you mean there is more evidentiary support from some parts of the Theory of Evolution than others, I agree.
The parts that are more lacking than others in the evidentiary support are there for a reason. They come up short on evidence, but someone (or group) WANTS them to be there. A conclusion is drawn first, then evidence is used to work backwards to that conclusion. Of course, IDists are accused of doing that, yet evolutionists do it too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by subbie, posted 02-29-2012 12:20 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:32 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 189 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 12:02 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 163 of 251 (654682)
03-02-2012 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Tangle
02-29-2012 3:29 AM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
But your question goes both ways, would what you feel about religion or evolution change if ID proponents get on a roll with a lot of peer reviewed papers? If the scientific peer reviewers had no choice but to take them seriously, or risk an obvious exposure of being biased?
I would be genuinely excited - as I was when I first heard about ID. The whole of science would be. Why wouldn't they? Science doesn't/can't argue against real fact and proper science.
All the ID guys have to do is produce some science, it really is that simple.
The whole of science has clearly proven that when it’s presented with something from ID that is completely non religious, it does not get excited, it gets ANGRY. Because that’s exactly what it did when the book ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ came out. Evolution being challenged by a new thought concept called irreducible complexity did nothing but make them angry.
Here's a list of some "nonexistant" peer reviewed publications by ID proponents. Were you not aware that any of this existed? I haven't noticed any excitement by anyone in the scientific community.
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Tangle, posted 02-29-2012 3:29 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Tangle, posted 03-03-2012 5:12 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 175 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2012 9:41 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 164 of 251 (654683)
03-02-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Trixie
02-29-2012 4:11 AM


Re: Analogies
You seem to be arguing that the ToE is utterly dependent on the mechanism which gave rise to the first life. Is it your case that the ToE only works if life arose from abiogenesis?
It only works depending on the real existence of the common ancestor that it claims all life on earth arose from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Trixie, posted 02-29-2012 4:11 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 165 of 251 (654684)
03-02-2012 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by dwise1
02-29-2012 4:57 AM


Re: persecution issues again?
You have expressed the desire to see ID research published. We are all also awaiting the exact same thing. OK, so whenever are we ever going to see such a thing? Is it the same thing as "creation science's" "mountains of evidences"? Forever promised to the faithful, but never ever delivered?
I’ll be glad to let William Dembski answer you on that one, I’m glad to give him the credit;
quote:
Critics of Intelligent design who want to maintain that the number of articles in the peer reviewed biological literature that support intelligent design is ZERO are playing a losing hand. That fiction is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Even so, I expect it to be maintained for a time. The problem is that to get work that supports intelligent design published in the peer-reviewed biological literature, biologists who are design theorists have to play their cards very close to the vest. As Michael Behe pointed out in an interview with the Harvard Political Review, for a biologist to question Darwinism endangers one’s career. There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.
By the way, Behe was not in the movie expelled. I suspect he got offers for a prominent part in it. He probably figured he's already had enough discrimination to last him a lifetime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by dwise1, posted 02-29-2012 4:57 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 167 of 251 (654686)
03-02-2012 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Taq
02-29-2012 11:42 AM


Re: Analogies
For evolution, it doesn't matter how that first life came about. We are following the EVIDENCE which leads to the conclusion that all life shares a common ancestral pool of genes. That is simply what the evidence shows. Nothing in atheism requires a single common ancestral pool. In fact, someone could find a rare species in some deep ocean vent that does not share the same genetic features as all other life and it would fit just fine with atheism. It would also fit just fine with evolution in that evolution does not require a single common ancestor for all life.
Wow, I’ve seen somewhere on the net the statement that evolution is a slippery word. Now it’s reached new slipperyness — I’ve never seen a claim that it can dance its way out of the common ancestor, until now. I wonder how that would do in court?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 02-29-2012 11:42 AM Taq has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 168 of 251 (654688)
03-02-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Taq
02-29-2012 11:46 AM


Re: Analogies
Would you accept the papers I have linked as evidence for abiogenesis or not? It is a simple yes or no.
No. And obviously most of the scientific community doesn't either, or it would be big news, and this thread wouldn't have been started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 02-29-2012 11:46 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 11:56 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 169 of 251 (654689)
03-02-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by jar
02-29-2012 6:25 PM


Re: Marc9000's Box
You're not influential enough yet. Get yourself a job as a judge, or get elected for some political office. You might get some pleasant surprises!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 02-29-2012 6:25 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 171 of 251 (654691)
03-02-2012 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by subbie
03-02-2012 8:32 PM


Re: Analogies
I guess that depends on what you mean by "atheism."
Hmmm, "atheism" must be a slippery word too!
Yes, and the reason is that they are mysteries that haven't yet been solved. Science is still working on them.
So science can do anything, if given enough time? Humans aren't that perfect.
And you of course have evidence of these people (or groups), right?
Of course, but that's probably another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:32 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 178 of 251 (654816)
03-04-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by subbie
03-02-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
Hmmm, "atheism" must be a slippery word too!
Like many words, it means different things to different people. I'm rather perplexed that you reached adulthood without understanding this simple truth.
Because it hasn’t been hauled into court like ID has. ID has been ruled by courts to only mean one thing - religion. The scientific community keeps it out of the public scientific realm based on that ruling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by subbie, posted 03-02-2012 8:59 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by subbie, posted 03-04-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 179 of 251 (654817)
03-04-2012 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Tangle
03-03-2012 5:12 AM


Re: Analogies
It's a pretty short list isn't it? They are very pleased that 2011 marked the 50th publication, not just of original research for ID but anything they could find anywhere that seemed to support the idea.
It’s a short list, but it’s not the zero that evolutionists constantly claim. ID proponents are constantly accused of dishonesty when they ask questions and express doubt about evolutionist claims. Opinions aren’t necessarily dishonesty, but misrepresentations like this about zero peer-reviewed papers is. Not accusing you personally, but that’s happened in this thread. Can’t keep straight who says what when I have many opponents.
But that's fair enough I suppose, in the end it would only take one document with the power of Darwin's original book - which incidentally, wasn't peer reviewed - to make a real contribution.
Nothing in ID could ever come close to the power of Darwin’s book. It sold out on its first day, even though there’s little question that most of those who bought it find change over time in biology to be about as exciting as watching paint dry. It was intellectual fulfillment for atheism, that’s what the selling point was.
The problem you have is that if you listed the peer reviewed papers for the ToE in the same way, it would quite literally be several million going back over a century. In order to overturn that amount of confirming evidence, ID has to do its own original research and also make it bomb proof. So far nothing they have come up with is good enough, it's all been refuted pretty quickly and simply.
Most of science’s millions of papers came about with millions in research money from public grants. ID doesn’t have that luxury — it’s been called religion and blocked from public funding by the courts.
In noting messages 173 & 176, I’m about to summarize and finish up. An important question for you as the thread starter however. Your opener, and many of the following messages by others, attempted to show a clear distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. Then, just as an opposition to me, messages 127 and 128 showed writings that clearly combine them. You and 26 (count em, 26) other evolutionist posters have taken no exception to that combination whatsoever. Is that really how easy it is for evolutionists to bend and shape their arguments to maintain their opposition to open inquiry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Tangle, posted 03-03-2012 5:12 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2012 8:55 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 184 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2012 9:10 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 9:27 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 186 by Tangle, posted 03-05-2012 3:50 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 12:05 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 180 of 251 (654818)
03-04-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by RAZD
03-03-2012 11:51 AM


Re: the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
But clearly NOT on a non-existent god. Naturalism in evolution is the secular\agnostic study of life according to either purely natural laws or created natural laws: there is no test that can distinguish one from the other without having examples of both. The theistic evolutionist recognizes this as much as the atheists recognize this: science is the tentative explanation of things according to what we see around us, as we see it, whether it is a purely natural universe or a created one. We can't test for one versus the other so this particular question is left unanswered.
It’s not left unanswered because everyone has a worldview. Promotion/justification of a person’s worldview is a significant part of most humans personal interest, whether they’re religious or non religious. A desire to make oneself look good, or to sway others to adapt, is a (some would say unfortunate) part of human nature. And it’s not always done directly, it can be done by IMPLICATION. Many/most people who take in interest in science choose to imply atheism.
No, they invalidated it and then were understandably dissappointed (though not surprised) that this invalidated hypothesis was not discarded by a group claiming to do science rather than theology. One can get understandably dissappointed in people that continue to hold a false belief (such as belief in a flat earth or a young earth, as examples of such delusions).
Belief in naturalistic abiogenesis has also been invalidated. That atheists continue to hold that false belief is disappointing. See how subjective, and largely meaningless, the word invalidated really is?
If you've been told by a source you respect that President Obama was not born in the US and you believe it then you have been deluded and being shown the birth certificate would be enough to cure this. If you came to the conclusion by yourself that President Obama was not born in the US then you have a false opinion, and being shown the birth certificate should be enough to cure this. If you continue to believe that President Obama was not born in the US after being shown the birth certificate then you are delusional.
How about if, considering the time lapses and dragging out the process of producing the birth certificate was, there is opinion/evidence that the birth certificate was FAKED? See how accusations of delusional by a strong presence of a one-sided worldview are largely meaningless?
marc9000 writes:
Wow, I’ve seen somewhere on the net the statement that evolution is a slippery word. Now it’s reached new slipperyness — I’ve never seen a claim that it can dance its way out of the common ancestor, until now. I wonder how that would do in court.
The judge could look at you blankly for even asking the question. You have a common ancestor with your siblings, and your birth is in no way dependent on whether the tree of life had one origin or many or on how many different trees are involved.
For the second time in this thread, the original form of life on earth has been compared to a parent. I can’t waste time on some of this stuff.
Perhaps, rather than a "slippery slope" occurring on every topic you disagree with, you are seeing the inevitability of the conclusion that you have been holding false opinions and beliefs.
That’s your worldview. Curiously, reality is in no way dependent on your personal worldview.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2012 11:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2012 9:00 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2012 10:29 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 192 of 251 (655229)
03-08-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by crashfrog
03-04-2012 8:55 PM


Re: Analogies
marc9000 writes:
Then, just as an opposition to me, messages 127 and 128 showed writings that clearly combine them.
Well, no. That's not accurate. I suspect you didn't even bother to read the cited paper (Ledberg 1952):
I glanced over it, mainly the summary. But I was going by what Taq said about it. From message 127;
quote:
Fine then. Let's blend them into the same thing. Abiogenesis and evolution are now the same. I don't think you will like this result, however.
So have we observed abiogenesis? Yep, sure have. Here is a great paper demonstrating abiogenesis:
which really is your loss, since it's one of the seminal papers in the biosciences, incredibly influential though you might not realize it without collegiate-level coursework in biology.
You’re right about that, I don’t even understand many of the terms used.
The paper doesn't even mention "abiogenesis", and it's about nothing but new traits arising in bacteria as a result of random mutation.
In taking a few guesses about what some terms mean, you seem to be right about that. TAQ WAS THE ONE WHO DECLARED IT TO BE ABOUT ABIOGENESIS. Why didn’t you correct him? Why did he even post that? Why was he dishonest about it being about abiogensis? Why are you trying to cover for him?
The paper elegantly proves every element of that case - that the traits are novel, that they arise by random, and that they are heritable (which, we now know, is the result of mutations in DNA.)
So that’s yet another paper about evolution, and has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis. What did it have to do with this thread?
Taq, of course, is doing nothing but using your rhetorical conflation of evolution and abiogenesis against you - if, as you contend, they're truly one and the same, than any evidence for evolution must also prove a material origin of life.
But that paper wasn’t really about abiogenesis like he said it was, because abiogenesis is about LIFE FROM NON-LIFE.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Nobody's posted any writings that "clearly combine them", and it's hardly a trick by evolutionists to attempt to turn one's own faulty reasoning against them. It's a standard rhetorical technique that you yourself have employed.
I myself have employed? I’ve never intentionally labeled something falsely, gotten 6 green dots for it, and had at least 6 others try to cover for me.
marc9000 writes:
You and 26 (count em, 26) other evolutionist posters have taken no exception to that combination whatsoever.
There was nothing to take exception to because no combination was made.
Let’s look at the words he used one more time;
quote:
So have we observed abiogenesis? Yep, sure have. Here is a great paper demonstrating abiogenesis:
You've simply failed, as usual, to understand any of the points being made against you. Completely and utterly failed.
I’m probably a little slow when it comes to fully comprehending the heights of atheist mocking, sarcasm, dancing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2012 8:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Panda, posted 03-08-2012 8:13 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 200 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2012 8:39 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 193 of 251 (655231)
03-08-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
03-04-2012 9:27 PM


Re: Analogies
Message 127 and Message 128 were explaining why combining abiogenesis and evolution is a bad idea and makes no sense. I think you must have misunderstood something.
I don’t understand a lot of the terms in that paper. But I do understand that one poster told me it was about abiogenesis, and another told me it was not. How am I supposed to know which one of them is right?
The resurrection and the ascension are two different things. The sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plains are two different things. The immaculate conception and the virgin birth are two different things. The Father, the Son and the holy ghost are three different things (and one thing, too, but we won't get into that). What is so hard about understanding that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things?
I think you’ve hit on something big — abiogenesis and evolution have a comparable relationship as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, yet one God. It’s a relationship that isn’t fully understood by even the most knowledgeable Bible scholars. Abiogenesis and evolution — two subjects, separated sometimes by naturalists, combined sometimes by naturalists. That flip flopping relationship isn’t fully understood by Bible scholars (or about anyone else) either.
What is so hard about understanding that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things?
Because they are both about naturalistic increases in order and complexity, both with no purposeful guidance, over long periods of time. As I have been informed in this thread, Darwin himself showed a separation in them. But it was Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley, who coined the term abiogenesis, someone who was profoundly interested in evolution. Here’s a quote from Huxley;
quote:
I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter.
He used the term "evolution" in describing abiogenesis. In the several decades following Huxley’s origination of the term, no was showing a separation of it and evolution, even through the 1920’s, 1930’s, 1940’s, etc. It was thought that a complete theory, similar to evolution, would be discovered for abiogenesis very soon. What Darwin said about their separation was forgotten about. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that that discovery may be more of a challenge than anyone in science was previously thinking. Recent discoveries of the past few decades have set it back even more. That’s what has inspired the most recent efforts to separate them. Yet, in the writings of Huxley (and I’m sure, others) in that time period, as well as in some science textbooks even today, there are some implications that there are similarities. It’s a miracle!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 03-04-2012 9:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 195 of 251 (655233)
03-08-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD
03-05-2012 10:29 AM


Re: the slippery slope to understanding when opinions are false
So how are all those conspiracy theories working out for you?
Reasonably well. Morality is decreasing in the U.S., more and more students are forming atheist groups, churches are closing, debt is increasing, etc. And there are enough concerned people who aren’t completely swallowing all the rhetoric about how innocent evolution instruction is to keep bringing up the subject of ID in education, in several state legislatures.
How’s your conspiracy theory doing? You know, the one where explorations of design in biology amount to nothing but a public establishment of religion?
Cognitive Dissonance predicts that the first reaction to information that contracts your pet beliefs is denial and the second is to attempt to discredit the source of the information in order to imply that the evidence is untrustworthy. Congratulations on reaching this level.
If you’ll google the name of Michael Behe, or "Darwin’s Black Box", you’ll find out who was actually first to reach that level.
The next step for those attempting to hold onto their delusions is to see vast conspiracies trying to force false information on you.
Like you do with ID?
This includes your conspiracy theory regarding atheists taking over science and plotting to take over the world by their imposition of teaching science.
Like you believe ID is a plot to establish religion in the U.S.?
marc9000 writes:
It’s not left unanswered because everyone has a worldview. Promotion/justification of a person’s worldview is a significant part of most humans personal interest, whether they’re religious or non religious. A desire to make oneself look good, or to sway others to adapt, is a (some would say unfortunate) part of human nature. And it’s not always done directly, it can be done by IMPLICATION. Many/most people who take in interest in science choose to imply atheism.
Including the signers of the clergy project?
Yes, it includes everyone. Maybe the clergy signers enjoy watching evolutionists/atheists run to them everytime they have trouble in a debate.
marc9000 writes:
Belief in naturalistic abiogenesis has also been invalidated. That atheists continue to hold that false belief is disappointing. See how subjective, and largely meaningless, the word invalidated really is?
Curiously, you have omitted any evidence of such invalidation. It certainly would be news to all the scientists that are currently working in that field. Perhaps you could share this ground breaking news with us?
It’s not ground breaking at all, naturalistic abiogenesis has not reached the level of theory yet. It’s only a hypothesis, with lots of gaps.
marc9000 writes:
For the second time in this thread, the original form of life on earth has been compared to a parent. I can’t waste time on some of this stuff.
And that would be because you continue to conflate and confuse common descent with origins. The term common ancestor applies to all levels of descent from parents, species from genera, genera from families, etc etc etc.
It is a basic in evolution to claim that all life on earth has ONE common ancestor.
Simply stated the concept of common descent states that related groups of organisms share a common ancestor, and this is born out by cladistic analysis of homologous traits.
The term "common ancestor" is not a synonym for an original population of life.
It is, concerning discussions of evolution.
quote:
Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some ONE primordial form, into which life was first breathed
(bolded mine) That’s from ‘Origin of Species’, and it’s stilll the centerpiece of the TOE. You’re the first one I’ve ever seen try to dance away from it.
Correct, but the less one needs to deny and ignore the objective evidence of reality the closer that world view to reality it is likely to be. One either assumes that objective evidence represents actual reality or one takes the slippery slope to assuming that all is illusion.
Science isn’t the only source of objective evidence. Some people consider written history to be more trustworthy than scientific theories, if the two happen to clash, as more and more scientific theories seem to do with written history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2012 10:29 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by caffeine, posted 03-09-2012 5:09 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2012 7:45 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 196 of 251 (655235)
03-08-2012 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Taq
03-06-2012 11:56 AM


Re: Analogies
Taq writes:
Would you accept the papers I have linked as evidence for abiogenesis or not? It is a simple yes or no.
No.
Then you are separating the theory of evolution from abiogenesis.
More accurately, I was beginning to doubt that your link had a thing to do with abiogenesis, or with this thread. It’s looking more and more like I was right about that. I see another evolutionist is trying to dance for you however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 11:56 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 03-08-2012 8:49 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024