Changes

Line 187: Line 187:     
:Actually abiogenesis has never been part of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory describes the diversity of life, not it's origins. It's correct that many evolutionists also apply evolutionary principles to abiogenesis, in the belief that differential reproductive success could have created living cells from organic chemicals, but it still isn't part of theory, it never has been and it's trivially easy for evolutionists to prove this. Evolution is wrong, abiogenisis is both wrong and impossible, but they are NOT part of the same theory and we shouldn't claim that they are. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
 
:Actually abiogenesis has never been part of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory describes the diversity of life, not it's origins. It's correct that many evolutionists also apply evolutionary principles to abiogenesis, in the belief that differential reproductive success could have created living cells from organic chemicals, but it still isn't part of theory, it never has been and it's trivially easy for evolutionists to prove this. Evolution is wrong, abiogenisis is both wrong and impossible, but they are NOT part of the same theory and we shouldn't claim that they are. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
−
::Sam, this is yet another case of you not adequately responding to that material I posted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:26, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::Sam, this is yet another case of you not adequately responding to that material I posted. For example, if you went to the page I cited: "...the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!". It is part of the paradigm. You can pretend so called "principles" are not part of a paradigm, but it is not convincing. The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines a pardadigm as "a '''philosophical''' and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." Evolutionary philosophy certainly includes so called evolutionary principles. That is why it is called "chemical evolution". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:35, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,851

edits