Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.

FYI: No you're not. That and the multiplication table.

But not for want of the evolutionists explaining it to them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Being interested in two different topics is not the same as "discussing both topics under the same subject", whatever that means.For example, I am interested in the two different topics of abiogenesis and evolution. But I do not "discuss both topics under the same subject".

Don't be silly. Of course they would. Just because the same people believe in two different things doesn't make them the same thing.For example, I believe both in aardvarks and in peanut butter. But this doesn't mean that they're the same thing.

Hi Peg, I think the quotes and arguments you've given only show that anyone interested in evolution would also have a keen interest in abiogenesis, as would anyone devoted to special creation. Evolutionary theory glaringly omits any treatment of the subject of abiogensis.On the other hand, your average person instinctively associates the two anyway, having never heard Creationists' implications or evolutionists' complaints; and regardless of whether he's religious or not. I think Creationists in general link abiogenesis to evolution in an intuitive manner too, rather than by examining evidence like you've presented. For some, it may also be a case of "guilt by association", in the sense that both threaten the special creation of single or multiple kinds. In any case, a basic review of evolutionary theory reveals that it acts only upon existing living organisms.It's quite conceivable that selective processes, in some shape or form, might apply to some part(s) of the abiogenetic process. (Chemical selection?) And this begs the question: At what point in the genesis of life did abiogenesis end and evolutionary processes begin? Or was there a gray area when both came into play?My guess is that there was indeed a gray area. But my only defense of this opinion is that so few things in life turn out to be black or white. The magic moment when abiogenesis served up life upon which evolution could act, if it's ever estimated, might become like the estimates of when a human fetus becomes a viable being: highly contentious.

you know when ever i have such arguments with evolutionists, they always are quick to say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolutionbut then in the same breath they say that abiogensis is the only explanation for how life began...even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'So this is the point im making....creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.Unfortunately i dont beleive that evolutionists really do separate the view that abiogensis was the cataclyst to evolution. I think the comments made in this thread (along with my link to Darwins letters to his associates) shows that to be the case.I agree its a highly contentious issue and will remain as such.

they are not really too similar. Creationists believe that the beginning of life was the 'creation' of living things in a fully developed formeverything from bacteria to dinosaurs to humans were created fully developed as opposed to gradually.

what do you think a creationist will think if they pick up richard dawkins 'the selfish gene' and get to page 15?they will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'If you can sit there and say that they are ignorant for linking abiogenesis with evolution after picking up Dawkins book, then you are not being very honest.

Why do you keep quoting Richard Dawkins like he is the Evolutionists Pope? He is one guy with an opinion. What he says has nothing to do with the reality that TOE and abiogenesis are 2 different but related subjects. No matter what you say or what you quote from Richard Dawkins that is the truth.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

He is not our Pope.
"The Selfish Gene" is not the Theory of Evolution.Your comments have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

darwin was a confused manhe didnt really know what he believed in regard to a creator...he was unsure and held to different views at different times.You only need to look at the letters he wrote to different associates to see that.

It is better to be unsure, than to be damned sure but wrong.

However, abiogenesis still means life from non-life.

That's quite understandable, since the ToE literally has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and you communicate often with very knowledgeable evolutionists. If an evolutionist were to say otherwise, he'd be demonstrating that he has a very poor grasp of the theory. I think that if you can overcome your intuitive association of the two sciences, you might better notice that these are typically separated into different breaths, as well as into different disciplines. It should be no surprise when they are mentioned in the same paragraph, as they are both concerned with life.Mr. Dawkins the evolutionist may also have strong opinions about who is going to win the World Cup. But that doesn't mean he's implying his favorite team succeeds through natural selection. Abiogenesis is about life. Evolution is about life. The link between the two is more than incidental, I agree. However, the two scientific disciplines run on distinctly different turf at this time. I'd like some clarification, please. Are you talking YECs, OECs or both? Do you mean no more debate about the abiogenesis issue between Creationists and evolutionists, or some broader truce? Between who and about what? You just might be in the best place on the web to find out what evolutionists really think about that separation. I agree with the others that have chimed in. They are separate. Taking all of Darwin's writings into account, he appears to believe in special creation. He's an evolutionist, a Creationist, and someone who would be very interested in investigations into abiogenesis. I agree. Evolutionary scientists need a good PR guy. Unfortunately, they seem to have neither the funding nor the stomach for such activities. Science is accustomed to letting its discoveries stand or fall on their own merit. Evolution has earned its stripes well. However its "advertising" is mostly limited to research papers, encyclopedias, and textbooks.Perhaps some wealthy benefactors might grant some funds to establish an Institution for coercing the public into Discovering the Truth about evolution; and researchers there could find ways to make people doubt the truth about Bible stories. We could call it the Discovering Institute!I think only religious folks would be taken seriously by religious folks on this issue. Many Creationists take it for granted that evolutionists are liars. Initiatives for informing the public of the realities of the debate will have to come from Christian organizations. It might not be too difficult. I know quite a few Christians who are quite fed up with being associated with Creationists' "misunderstandings" about science. I would agree if you had said, "...the only beginning that science offers." Evolutionists seem to be the eternal whipping boys of Creationists, and in this case it's especially unfair because today evolution and abiogenesis are indeed separate fields of study.Yes, abiogenesis is the only reasonable explanation that science offers for explaining the start of life at this time. It seems that Creationists aren't happy with science's progress (or lack of it) in this field. Perhaps they will one day go to debate the issues at AvCforum.net, where Abos meet Creos...Edited by glowby, : Added a winky face at the end...

They also say gravity is the explanation for things falling down. Yet you don't say that's part of evolution, now do you.