Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

Almeyda,Abiogenesis is not a logical requirement for evolution. God could have created the first single celled organism. If another hypothesis can account for the original organism(s), & evolution still occur, then abiogenesis is not a part of the ToE.Mark

Almeyda, Irrelevant. As long as there are potential explanations other than abiogenesis, & evolution can still occur, then abiogenesis isn't a logically necessary part of evolutionary theory. Life could have existed as long as the universe has, for example, assuming cosmologists got the big bang wrong.Furthermore, evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain the origins of life, only what happened after it was there. It's not your prerogative to tell biologists what is a part of their theory & what isn't. Or are you saying we can't study atomic theory without firstly rejecting god outright, & assuming the Big Bang? You can't have it both ways. In both cases it is possible to study evolution & sub-atomic particles without knowledge of where they came from. So again, abiogenesis is not a logically irremovable part of evolutionary theory. If nothing else it's nice to know you accept abiogenesis & evolution as the best scientific explanations of the origins & diversity of life, respectively.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-09-2004 06:56 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Almeyda, When you answer the questions in post 49 instead of doing your usual ignoring trick, you'll sound more credible.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Almeyda, The formation of larger & more complex molecules from less complex ones that may ultimately be co-opted by metabolism & self replicators. In which case the word "evolution" isn't biological evolution by definition, it becomes a general term like cosmological evolution, personal evolution, etc.As crashfrog points out, this is a contradiction in terms. The ToE deals with biological evolution, not prebiological evolution.I think confusion arises because life can defined in different ways. If we define life as also having metabolism, then there is a potential area where something analogous to NS occurs to the self replicator before metabolism appears. But by definition it's still not biological evolution. Assuming self replication precedes metabolism, of course.Now, perhaps, just once, you would be so good as to answer some of my questions from my last post, & maybe you'll learn something from the logical contradiction you place yourself in. ".....Or are you saying we can't study atomic theory without firstly rejecting god outright, & assuming the Big Bang? You can't have it both ways. In both cases it is possible to study evolution & sub-atomic particles without knowledge of where they came from. So again, abiogenesis is not a logically irremovable part of evolutionary theory."Thank you.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Almeyda, You are, it explains the diversity of life, not origins. That's what everyone has been trying to explain to you.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

almeyda, You don't need to know somethings origin in order to know that it exists. It would be nice, & is a perfectly valid follow on question, but not necessary. You accept all other science without needing to know why or how, don't you? Why/how of gravity is not required to be answered in order to accept gravitational theory. Why/how did fundamental particles come to be is not necessary to be answered in order to accept the existence of fundamental particles.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-16-2004 04:57 AM

Almeyda, Do you remember the post I made on the amazing correlation of cladistics & stratigraphy?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't