Originally posted by Lazarus Short
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same
Science excludes supernatural explanations, because by definition, they can't be proven to exist. If they were, they would no longer be considered
supernatural. Scientists have been working to figure out the origin of life for a long time and it continues today.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
Abiogenesis is a work in progress, and it HAS had a few successful experiments.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
Lies. Life could have been created to evolve. Evolution is life changing, not originating. Equivocation = logical fallacy. Sorry. Logical
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
Reference please. Last I checked, abiogenesis is a hypothesis and taught as such.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
If only you could prove that with anything besides a list full of meaningless speculation, like the next items.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
And this has been duplicated in a lab, where single cells became multicellular organisms with multi cellular offspring.
So your next bunch of speculation is indeed speculation.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
Actually there's tons of explanations.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
Funny how it takes you 4 numbers to make 1 point. Alas you are speculating again.
The evolution of nervous systems dates back to the first development of nervous systems in animals (or metazoans). Neurons developed as
specialized electrical signaling cells in multicellular animals, adapting the mechanism of action potentials present in motile single-celled and
colonial eukaryotes. Simple nerve nets seen in animals like cnidaria evolved first, followed by nerve cords in bilateral animals - ventral nerve cords
in invertebrates and dorsal nerve cords surrounded by a notochord in chordates. Bilateralization led to the evolution of brains, a process called
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled
themselves by any natural process.
So sorry. You are incorrect once again!
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
Evolution haters can't quite comprehend what the theory actually says. The mutations (which aren't always random) are only a small part of it. The
environment takes a much bigger role.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)