| Subject: |
|
Abiogenesis? |
| Name: |
|
whoisyourcreator |
| Date Posted: |
|
Feb 28, 08 - 11:22 AM |
| IP Address: |
|
75.72.61.158 |
| Email: |
|
info@whoisyourcreator.com |
| Message: |
|
Because random ‘self-assembly’ of life from non-life is a stretch, the word ‘spontaneous’ is out and has been replaced with the more seemingly scientific term called ‘abiogenesis.’ However, the same utter lack of evidence nullifies this evolutionary supernatural event also.
But, because evolutionists openly claim that abiogenesis had occurred “… in the ancient, unobservable past,” they don't feel the need to prove it actually occurred - I guess their word is good enough!
“Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past. But abiogenesis differs from spontaneous generation in another important way. While spontaneous generation proposed the emergence of a complete, complex cell or organism from organic molecules in one huge jump, abiogenesis draws from gradualism, where the original life forms were much simpler than modern cells and only gradually evolved their present-day form of complexity. Thus, abiogenesis not only places the spontaneous generation of life far in the past, but the life that is generated was supposedly much simpler, thus easier to generate spontaneously.”
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis
Do you suppose that if creationists:
1. Gave the word 'creation' a more seemingly scientific name and;
2. repackaged it with a slight twist and;
3. acted insulted if called upon to prove it true;
4. that we could actually get the same mention in textbook as the religion of evolution does?--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Replying to: "Great! Can we count on you to contact your fellow evolutionists in academia to notify them of their blunder?"
Blunder? Gee, talk about taking a misinterpretation about what I said and RUNNING with it... jeeez. Lighten up.
I assume you're referring to the connection with abiogenesis. Well, it seems that though there's some debate on whether or not it should be included as part of the argument or not - from WITHIN the scientific community:
From Pharyngula:
#15 is also a pet peeve: "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life" is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that "abiogenesis is not evolution," but it's a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don't understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/15_misconceptions_about_evolut.php
So hey - maybe PZ Myers is on "your side" too? |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com