RE: Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false
November 3, 2014 at 12:25 pm
(This post was last modified: November 3, 2014 at 12:30 pm by Cyberman.)
The word is 'bollocks'. As was a lot of the words you've been using. I made no claims one way or another regarding physical laws. I made the observation that life is built up from basic amino acids; that the M/U experiment spontaneously polymerised certain of those amino acids under conditions loosely resembling those of the primaeval Earth; that the results indicate that no external influence, human or god, was required for the amino acids to form. If you want to inject a god's hand into the experiment then go ahead.
I quite agree that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is real. Since you do too, then that card need not come up in the deck again.
Incidentally, the other phrase you want is 'back pedalling'. Peddling is the act of selling something, thus back peddling, if such a thing exists, would suggest my convincing you to sell me something. I doubt there's anything you have that I would wish to buy.
I quite agree that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is real. Since you do too, then that card need not come up in the deck again.
Incidentally, the other phrase you want is 'back pedalling'. Peddling is the act of selling something, thus back peddling, if such a thing exists, would suggest my convincing you to sell me something. I doubt there's anything you have that I would wish to buy.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
