The Evolution Definition Shell Game

Fred,You act like scientists are afraid of discussing abiogenesis, or that is some kind of Achilles Heel in the Atheist worldview (and please say Atheist when you mean Atheist rather than using Evolutionist). This is simply not the case. All that is going on is that we are trying to maintain meaningful definitions.Evolution is usually used to describe Darwins theory of descent by natural selection or, more commonly, a modern varient on that basic principle. Abiogenesis, however it happened, can never be explained by natural selection; because until we have a replicator there is nothing for natural selection to act on.This is why Evolutionist insist on seperating Evolution and abiogenesis; because the issues involved are wildly different.

On the Galileo issue.Galileo and Copernicus both worked in an institution funded and supported by the Catholic church and their work was only possible because of its patronage. The idea then that Catholic church supressed science is nonsense; in fact, it was its biggest supporter.Galileo was executed not because he espoused heliocentricity but because he insulted the church in his writtings. His execution was a source of horror to most of the Catholic peers of the time, who increased funding to the institute he worked for in a kind of recompense.

I stand corrected. I maintain however that it was not heliocentricity that resulted in Galileo's punishment.

My television told me so, it must be true!I'm getting my information here from 'Gods in the Sky' a recent science and religous history series on British TV, it seemed accurate and authorative on the points I already knew about, so I consider it likely to be accurate on this point.

Mostly it was meant to be a 'I don't really know' reply. Not having done anything approaching a thorough investigation I am not in a position to judge between the source cited by Truthlover and 'Gods in the Sky'.I find the idea that heliocentricity was central unlikely. Copernicus had suggested it without problem many years earlier, and the church continued to fund the institute and it's research into this area afterwards. Certainly the writing in which Galileo forwarded this idea did cause the problem, but that does not necessarily mean it was heliocentricity itself that was the problem.

I've done some reading and it looks like I was wrong. Dunno what the chap on 'Gods in the Sky' was on about. Apologies for misleading you all.