539
edits
Changes
Talk:Question evolution! campaign (view source)
Revision as of 00:00, September 17, 2011
, 00:00, September 17, 2011→Origin of life is part of the 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)
: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 tehy are NOT part of the same theory and we shouldn't claim that they are. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)