Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8993 total)
53 online now:
Hyroglyphx, jar, Juvenissun, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,076 Year: 10,824/23,288 Month: 76/1,763 Week: 43/390 Day: 26/17 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9

Message 57 of 140 (568532)
07-06-2010 12:19 PM

Of course, in the eyes of creationists the field of evolution doesn't stop with abiogenesis. It goes all the way back to the BB, and before. Afterall, you need the chemicals necessary for abiogenesis before you can have abiogenesis so you need star formation and supernovae. Before supernovae you need hydrogen. Before hydrogen you need the superhot quark plasma that existed in the early universe. Then you need the origin of that.

If creationists were honest then they would admit that every single field of science must also explain the origin of the universe. Germ theory? Well, you need to explain the origin of the first germ, the origin of the matter that made up the first germ, and then the origin of that matter, hence the BB. Chemistry? Need to explain where all of those heavy elements came from, where the supernovae came from, where the hydrogen came from, where the energy for the first matter came from, and the BB. Geology? Where the first soils came from, where the first silicates came from, on and on and on for every single field of science.

So why is Peg singling out evolution when every single theory (most of which Peg probably accepts) has the same flaw?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020