Posted by Bob on March 28, 1999 at 09:12:14:
In Reply to: you continue to avoid answering my question... posted by rpcman on March 27, 1999 at 23:36:19:
I appreciate the sources of information you have provided (I will read some of them), but there is obviously a bit of confusion here about the subject. I began talking about the evolutionary theory that human beings evolved from apes and the fundamental assumnption of evolutionary theory, that all life began by chance. You can try to separate the two if you wish, But I can't. There was a time when evolutions didn't try to separate them, the assumption of life by chance was the foundation of their argument. Why have they gone to "Directed panspermia" and "Punctuated equilibria"? Because "thorough testing" and "scientific corroboration" has forced them there, where their theory cannot be tested. You may want to argue about evolving microbes or changes in the features of birds, or redefine just what a "new specie" is; but that doesn't scientifically address the fundamental question of how life originated or Human beings specifically. I made three simple points in the beginning: 1) noted scientists made statements that life by chance is appparently impossible. 2)Transitional forms have not been found linking man to apes. 3) Several hoaxes were used in the absence of scientific evidence.
You have provided nothing that refutes these, or supports your charge that I misquoted and distorted. In response to your four points:
1. Yes, Fred Hoyle believes in evolution. I didn't say he doesn't, and
2. I didn't say he believes in God. (I just used the word "evolution", does that make me a believer in it?) The apparent contradiction is his, not mine.
3. Interesting quote, I agree with it; but what has been the result as it applies to Human origin and the origin of life theories? If it proved the old theory there would be no need for "directed panspermia". This doesn't change the fact that I quoted him correctly concerning the probability of DNA originating by chance.
4) You say Paul Lemoine didn't say what I claim he did. If he didn't, then the material I am reading from at this moment is incorrect. I will assume you know what you are talking about and check it out. I am willing to be proven wrong -- all true scientists are.
Again, I do appreciate your advice. Bob