Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I for one would be much more likely to respond to a poster who puts up on the board her/his own arguments (even if they're borrowed from elsewhere) and explains why (s)he finds them persuasive. I may be in a (lazy) minority of one, but when reading through a busy message board I'm disinclined to be sidetracked onto a link that may or may not contain anything interesting to discuss.
Let me put it this way. If I say I am going to take a train from California to Japan, someone might say that there isn't a train that goes from California to Japan. Then I will say to them, that is a different discussion.
Let me put it this way. If I say I am going to take a train from California to Japan, someone might say that there isn't a train that goes from California to Japan. Then I will say to them, that is a different discussion.
I just don't accept the conventional idea of abiogenesis. Animate creatures did not emerge out of completely inanimate matter. The way I see it, the term inanimate would describe something that is static, unchanging, and not capable of interacting at any level. That to me does not describe matter.
I think abiogenesis is relevant to the supposed evolution of life.
How can the start of something not be relevant to what is claimed is the cause for the incredible complexity of even the smallest living organism?
Evolution is a theory without a beginning, and without a foundation.
Little wonder it's proponents want to ignore the question of how it started.
Don't chemical reactions count as interaction at some level?
No one is ignoring the question of how it started. There's a lot of research going on to find that answer, but it's not grouped under evolution.I think abiogenesis is relevant to the supposed evolution of life. How can the start of something not be relevant to what is claimed is the cause for the incredible complexity of even the smallest living organism? Evolution is a theory without a beginning, and without a foundation. Little wonder it's proponents want to ignore the question of how it started.