In article
<4070c31e-afa9-4e60-b2d2-756ef74b03ea@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
SkyEyes <skyeyes9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> On Mar 14, 2:32=A0am, InterloperV <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Free Lunch wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:34:33 GMT, in alt.atheism
> > > InterloperV <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in <JCkCj.4724$yD3.2231@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> > >> Elmer wrote:
> > >>> InterloperV wrote:
> > >>>> Elmer wrote:
> > >>>> Snip for brevity.
> >
> > >>>> all good cookbooks about how to make aminoacids. Not one on how
to se=
> t
> > >>>> in motion abiogenesis.
> > >>> They are all concerned with how it happened. That it happened is
not a=
> t
> > >>> issue.
> > >> and yet it has not been duplicated. Why is that?
> >
> > > Because scientists do not know enough yet how it happened.
> >
> > > There is no question that it could happen. Scientists try to do the
best=
>
> > > they possibly can to find how how it happened.
> >
> > > Science groups deleted because you are not talking about science.
> >
> > They don't even know if it did. Abiogenesis is not a science ? So
> > evolution is faith based?
>
> Evolution is orthagonal to abiogenesis. No matter how life first came
> about, whether on earth or elsewhere in the galaxy, once it got to
> earth, it underwent change over time, resulting in the array of life
> forms extant today, as well as those that have since gone extinct.
> Therefore, evolution - which is observable and verifiable by ordinary
> scientific method - is *not* "faith-based."
<sigh...> that chick said "orthogonal"...
-- cary
|
