Originally posted by jaywillA loosing battle?
Why did Evolutionists back away from Origin of Life arguments of science?
Probably because they saw it was a loosing battle for Darwinism.
As Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner for the DNA model said:
[b]"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after two few facts" [/b]
Two few facts?
Really, if you want us to take your seriously, please try to edit what your write.
As for your question, let me try to respond: why do evolutionists (whatever they are) back away from OOL arguments?
Because evolution is not a theory that describes the Origin of Life.
Simple enough for you?
Originally posted by jaywillMcDonalds has a hamburger, so there must be a hamburgler.
I don't see the age of the universe is even much of an issue.
It had a beginning. So we can assume that it had a Beginner.
It and life have a design so they had a Designer, however long ago the original creation was.
Young Earth or Old Earth doesn't matter to design detection.
Hmmm yes, fascinating stuff.
You creationist/IDers have got this argument from reasoning down pat.
Originally posted by amannionThe theory of Evolution still does lean on abiogenesis does it not? If abiogenesis falls through the carpet so does the TOE as a proper theory of explaining origins.
A loosing battle?
Two few facts?
Really, if you want us to take your seriously, please try to edit what your write.
As for your question, let me try to respond: why do evolutionists (whatever they are) back away from OOL arguments?
Because evolution is not a theory that describes the Origin of Life.
Simple enough for you?
Unless of course you just want to use it as a theory to explain the diversity of life.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis are two seperate things. If you want a thread about the latter I suggest that you start one. Perhaps it will be as "successful" as this one has been.
The theory of Evolution still does lean on abiogenesis does it not? If abiogenesis falls through the carpet so does the TOE as a proper theory of explaining origins.
Unless of course you just want to use it as a theory to explain the diversity of life.
Originally posted by XanthosNZAs much as you would like to seperate Abiogenesis from the TOE, the latter would not be able to stand on its own as a viable theory of explaining origins if the former fell through the carpet.
The Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis are two seperate things. If you want a thread about the latter I suggest that you start one. Perhaps it will be as "successful" as this one has been.
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe Theory of Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.
Exactly what? The Theory of Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life and therefore?
You should be smart enough to figure that out.😉
Edit: There are plenty of people with the misconception that it does, believe it or not.