hello Springer:
you say in this
It's no use. Evolutionists conveniently divorce themselves from explanations of abiogenesis because they have absolutely no explanation of how it is possible. To simply state that it's not part of evolutionary theory is a cop-out.
how is it a cop-out, when the ToE has nothing to do with abiogenesis?
does The GR have to explain how BB works? they are related but they explain what they explain
The simplest concievable form of life as we know it would require at least one strand of DNA or RNA. Simply put, the probability of such a complex molecule randomly coming together is nill. Even if by some freakish event such a spontaneous arrangement were accomplished, it would require the intricate protein/lipid structure of a cell to survive and reproduce.
which is why it is still at the, as someone said the "fund me, so i can find out" stage
To base an entire theory on such an enormously improbable event is ludicrous. Science follows laws of probability.
hmm the only thing that is ludicrous is this distortion of ToE to fit some sort of strawman, yes science follows probability, and it points to the ToE
This message has been edited by demongoat, 09-29-2005 09:49 PM
"Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it."
™ Version 4.2