Dr. Sing writes:
What intrigues me though is how Darwin chooses to ignore the origin of life question. [...] What does he expect his readers to do? Each form their own idea of how life began??
Dr. Sing, allow me to paraphrase what you just said, not to aggravate you, but to elicit a reasonable response from you. So here goes:
"What intrigues me though is how Dr. Sing chooses to ignore the origin of God question. [...] What does he expect his readers to do? Each form their own idea of how God began??"
You see, the problem is not that you want us to explain the origin of life (although that has no bearing on the theory of evolution, as has been explained many times before). The simple answer is that as yet science has no adequate explanation of the origin of life, period. Admittedly, it's not very satisfactory, but that's the way it is.
The real problem is that you don't see that your alternative for the origin of life, God, is not an adequate explanation either. To explain one complex phenomenon, life, you advance another, supposedly even more complex phenomenon, namely God. So if you grant yourself the right to ask us to explain the origin of life, aren't we entitled to the same right and ask you to explain your version of the origin of life? Can you explain God?
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2
