Here is the post: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059312737 (In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?)
1) tell me concisely what you think i have claimed that you disagree with
2) then show me where you think the links says otherwise
Simply present ONE SUCCESSFUL experimentation that has produced anything except a building block of PROTEIN....ammino acid, which is as far removed from producing life as the day is from the night. Even when Science copies or reproduces certain DNA strains, Life cannot be animated void of injecting preexisting life into that experiment, just as the LAW OF BIOGENESIS explains. Even Gravity can be observed by the potential demonstrated when a Quantum Formula is applied, if such were not true there would be no Atomic Research, Micro Wave Research, or Radio Wave technology possible. But...such is not the case with the hypothesis concerning the origins of life....Life cannot come from NOTHING...even speaking in terms of Quantum Physics...regardless of how SMALL and undetectable it might be, THE POTENTIAL is very observable and reproducible upon each application of said formula. But LIFE coming from DEAD MATTER cannot be Observed nor Reproduced on any level.
I totally agree, ABIOGENSES and VERTICAL EVOLUTION are on the same plane of reality......its nothing but Speculation void of any physical reproducible evidence...aka, best known as PHILOSOPHY, not PHYSICAL SCIENCE.
But, Biogenesis is a PHYSICAL LAW, well documented with a plethora of evidences.
Last edited by Walter; 02-27-11 at 12:08 AM.
This indicates that:There has never been one experiment out of countless hundreds of thousands that has been conducted in the scientific method that demonstrates the Vertical Evolution of Dead Matter into biological life...is even a possibility might less a probability, yet even after being falsified time and time again....this theory is taught as a FACT of Science. I could never support a blatant fabrication.
1) you don't understand the difference between evolution and abiogensis
2) you mistakenly believe that when scientists refer to evolution they are also referring to abiogenesis.
3) you don't know that no theory on abiogenesis is widely accepted within the scientific community.
Last edited by scourge99; 02-27-11 at 12:00 AM.
Last edited by Walter; 02-27-11 at 12:20 AM.
...which is exactly what I said here:Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.
Your link independently verifies my claim. Your link does not substantiate your claim.
I maintain that the loud minority remains a minority non the less, and in America evolution has a home.
Last edited by Jerry; 02-27-11 at 12:19 AM.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
It even has a page all about debunking common creationist claims: An Index to Creationist Claims
Perhaps life was started by a god, by natural causes, or something else. Not knowing doesn't invalidate the evidence for evolution.