Changes

:Conservative, thank you for your sound criticism.  I did kind of overuse the "royal we", I used it in reference to the best consensus of the scientific community.  I do apologize for using over-generalizations and assertions--considerations of length were the limiting factor.  To really properly answer most of these questions in sufficient detail would require several pages of writing each.  It was my aim to be succinct and factual without being too esoteric.  That said, my other aim was to provide scientific answers to these questions based off what is currently known in the field.  It was not my intention to argue theology--simply scientific evidence; as such, I purposefully avoided addressing the Christian Apologist position.  I will say up front that I am not an atheist--I am Roman Catholic, and I agree with the church's official position that naturalistic evolution is compatible with Christian faith.  Finally, I do want to admit that, in hindsight, it was a bit pretentious and perhaps inappropriate to label my responses as "a biologist's answers".  I am a developmental biologist by trade, although I am still in training.  I have a BS in cell and molecular biology and I have completed graduate-level coursework in developmental biology.  I am also about to start a PhD program in developmental biology.  Additionally, I have three years of experience researching kidney development and the pathogenesis of kidney diseases, from which I have published in peer-reviewed journals.  --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative, thank you for your sound criticism.  I did kind of overuse the "royal we", I used it in reference to the best consensus of the scientific community.  I do apologize for using over-generalizations and assertions--considerations of length were the limiting factor.  To really properly answer most of these questions in sufficient detail would require several pages of writing each.  It was my aim to be succinct and factual without being too esoteric.  That said, my other aim was to provide scientific answers to these questions based off what is currently known in the field.  It was not my intention to argue theology--simply scientific evidence; as such, I purposefully avoided addressing the Christian Apologist position.  I will say up front that I am not an atheist--I am Roman Catholic, and I agree with the church's official position that naturalistic evolution is compatible with Christian faith.  Finally, I do want to admit that, in hindsight, it was a bit pretentious and perhaps inappropriate to label my responses as "a biologist's answers".  I am a developmental biologist by trade, although I am still in training.  I have a BS in cell and molecular biology and I have completed graduate-level coursework in developmental biology.  I am also about to start a PhD program in developmental biology.  Additionally, I have three years of experience researching kidney development and the pathogenesis of kidney diseases, from which I have published in peer-reviewed journals.  --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

== Origin of life is part of evolutionary paradigm ==

== Origin of life is part of evolutionary paradigm ==

"No one claimed that abiogenesis was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004)."[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

"No one claimed that abiogenesis was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004)."[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)