Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Evolution - Just One Thing!

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    ... Hi, Robert. Thanks for asking. Actually in this case there is no typo involved. Spontaneous generation is indeed scientifically impossible. The point I
    Message 1 of 15 , Oct 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #2547):
      > Todd, you wrote, in part:
      >
      >> It is spontaneous generation that is scientifically
      >> impossible.
      >
      > Should the "It is" have been "Is it" with a "?" at the end to
      > indicate a rhetorical question?
      >
      > Or, maybe you meant "It is not"?
      >
      > In the context, you threw me off with that.

      Hi, Robert.

      Thanks for asking. Actually in this case there is no typo involved.
      Spontaneous generation is indeed scientifically impossible. The point
      I made was that origins of life research does not involve the concept
      of spontaneous generation. A "simplest living organism" is *not*
      going to organize spontaneously from the elements by random chance -
      and no origins of life researcher would ever say that it did. This is
      my point. When creationists invoke "spontaneous generation" in
      connection with origins of life research today, they are merely
      playing a typical creationist game of misrepresentative caricature.

      Regards,
      Todd Greene
    • mathewmaury
      ... Is this clear to anyone else? Is Todd claiming that randomness was not involved in his origin of life scheme? Or that life was not created through natural
      Message 2 of 15 , Oct 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Todd wrote:
        > Thanks for asking. Actually in this case there is no typo
        > involved. Spontaneous generation is indeed scientifically
        > impossible. The point I made was that origins of life
        > research does not involve the concept of spontaneous
        > generation. A "simplest living organism" is *not* going to
        > organize spontaneously from the elements by random chance -
        > and no origins of life researcher would ever say that it
        > did. This is my point. When creationists invoke "spontaneous
        > generation" in connection with origins of life research
        > today, they are merely playing a typical creationist game of
        > misrepresentative caricature.

        Is this clear to anyone else?
        Is Todd claiming that randomness was not involved in his
        origin of life scheme? Or that life was not created through
        natural processes? Or is he saying the process that created
        life was externally directed?

        How does Todd say life began if it did not organize
        spontaneously from the elements by random chance?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.