Lines in italics are from the emailers.  

    Lines in blue are my comments.  

Greetings Mr M,


M wrote:

> Hi <Author>:
>
> 
>
> Thanks for the time you took to study the 10 arguments. 

>
> Regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it is a fairly solid supposition that heat can not be transferred from a colder to a warmer system. Transfer against the gradient may be consistent with the Law, however, if there are simultaneous changes in the two systems or in the environment. It follows from this law that during an adiabatic process, entropy cannot decrease. The thermodynamic function of state involves internal energy, pressure, volume, temperature and heat units. Entropy increases reaching a maximum value. Isolated and closed systems deal with interactions or the lack thereof between systems. I don’t see how an expanding universe would be exempt from the 2nd Law. 


Ok what I think you're missing here is the difference between "the big picture" and "the local picture". Assuming that our universe is a closed system (and there is evidence that it's not) then eventually, after an incredibly long time, everything will have "reached maximum entropy". However for trillions of years the universe will remain "viable" for conditions that allow life as we understand it to develop and continue growing. Basically, while the Overall level of entropy in the universe may increase, the pockets of matter and energy that form the galaxies, stars, and planets will continue to "concentrate" the resources needed for life and other processes to continue. 

If you read the Talk Origins articles on the 2nd law you will see many many examples of processes we observe every day which result in a local decrease in entropy. It is also important to note that many processes which result in increased complexity also result in an increase in entropy. As long as something somewhere "pays the price" these processes can continue. 

Now I hope you understand that, just as a storm will grow and become more complex (more so in some parts then others) while conditions are favorable, but will eventually lose energy and break up, a closed universe will eventually "die" but will provide plenty of areas for development for a really long time. This is why the 2nd law does not apply to evolution, the overall state of the universe is not the same as the very limited area and very limited time frame where evolution is occurring. 

If this was not clear enough, let me know the specific questions you still have and I can direct you some very complete explanations. 




> Everything decays and there are some theorists that contend all molecules in the universe (about 10^80) will decay at a point in the distant future and existence will cease. 


Actually there are many things that don't decay as far as we know and, even if proton decay is real (it has never been observed), the universe will continue, just in a different form then what we have now. The problem I think you are having here is that you (and most people) are confusing entropy with "decay" as in an object wearing out over time. This is not the case. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm gives a basic overview of this idea, I can provide additional information if you need it. It should also be remembered that current theories of the universe indicate that it is not a closed system, and thus will not "decay" even to this level. 



> 
>
> All of your comments on the 10 suppositions were well thought out and I really enjoyed reading material from the talkorigins.org website. However, we are speaking different languages. You might be speaking English and I might be speaking French. You say one thing and I respond with a concept you can not relate to. You heard it, but it means nothing because you only speak your language. We will go round and round in a circular argument, changing no one’s mind. 



Now I disagree with this. I think that we just need to come to common definitions for what we are discussing. The problem seems to be terms which have several, quite different, meanings are being used and the different contexts cause confusion. This is exemplified by the confusion of entropy and "decay". 



> 
>
> It all comes down to visible and invisible reality. Have you ever gotten sick? Did you see the culprit that made you sick? Maybe it was a virus on a doorknob. You will say that the virus could still be seen at high magnification. In 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded. Since then, thousands have died due to illnesses induced by radiation they could not see. You will say that there are instruments which can detect radiation levels. I would agree- I use water vapor satellite imagery everyday to see weather elements that can not be detected by any of our senses. Do radiation, radio waves, the wind and other invisible things not affect you because you can’t see them?



Ok, I assume you are referring to "everyday reality" verses "true reality". Humans normal interactions with the universe occur on a tremendously limited scale and thus the way we expect things to work is very different then they we we have discovered things actually work. This is why science has been so successful, it requires that our explanations describe how things actually are, not how we want or expect them to be. 



> How about words spoken by a person. Are you not affected by the words because you can’t see them?



This is another example of confusion of terms. "Affected" can mean directly or indirectly influenced and the level of affect can also change the meaning of the term tremendously. 



> 
>
> Are you aware of what people are thinking? There is so much happening all around you that you are not aware of. You will say, what does it matter to me? How does any of this pertain to me?



How pertinent an event is varies tremendously with the context. Most of the events that occur (particularly on the scale of the universe) have effectively no direct affect on an individual. In the context of overall influence, particularly over longer periods of time, then many aspects of influence can be observed. 



> I know it’s a big world out there with a lot I don’t fully understand. And why don’t you stick to the subject?
>
> 
>
> Because the subject is bigger than 10 arguments. It is bigger than evolution or ID.



The problem here is that if you try and discuss all elements of any issue at once nothing will ever be accomplished because the subject will keep changing. An area of an issue must be "worked on", then the conversation can move on to how it fits into a "bigger picture" or to a different area. 




> There are ascendant thinkers and descendent thinkers. Those who have it all figured out and refuse to accept instruction, those who limit their knowledge, people who don’t want to see beyond a certain level- always looking down- are descendent thinkers. Everything is ultimately meaningless and without purpose and they miss the incredibly beautiful world around them. They write a lot of books about the progressive nature of their descendentness.
>
> 
>
> On the other hand, those who seek to find a reason for being are ascendant thinkers. They are not always right, but they are looking hard.



I view this differently. I think that just about everyone is seeking answers, the main difference is the way they go about it. Most effectively stop looking once they have found answers they are comfortable with. Now this is not necessarily bad, as continuing to spend large amounts of resources researching every issue once a reasonable level of evidence has suggested a valid answer would be an impossible waste. The problem seems to usually be that most people will stay with an idea they are comfortable with, even when evidence suggests that there is a better explanation that they are less comfortable with. Again, this is what separates most earlier forms of seeking answers with science. Science requires that the answer that best explains what is currently known be utilized, not the one that we are most comfortable with. 
Stephen Jay Gould said "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
The main factor seems to be the degree that people are willing to challenge their expectations and preconceptions. 

-

> They believe Carl Sagan was wrong when he said, “The universe is all there is, all there was and all there will ever be.”



I think you are interpreting this incorrectly. This is a definitional statement, he is defining "the Universe" as "all there is, all there was and all there will ever be.”, not claiming that what we can perceive or even theorize about now is everything that is. 



> There is another environment around us that you can’t see. Like the wind or a thought, or any other aforementioned invisible quantity, it is unseen but still has an effect. This other world is as close as your hand in front of your face. But you will never sense it until you start to seek it.



One of the basic principles of science and reason is seeking currently unperceived events and principles, just as with many previous methods for finding answers. The difference is that science requires that the new (and old) ideas be shown (as best as we are able) to work 
I think this is another example of differing definitions. Science has no problem with events/ principals that are "unseen" by ordinary human perceptions, the obvious example being the atom being explained long before we had sensors that could directly perceive it (an important idea here is that science will accept events/ principals that cannot be directly observed, but the other evidence must be that much stronger). 



> 
>
> The first sentence of the New Testament reads “In the beginning was logos”. Logos is Greek and can be translated “word” or “reason”. I’m glad you place a premium on reason (as typified by your e-mail and website). I don’t demand that you acknowledge the presence of a spiritual realm (like a jihadist would), but rather I appeal to your sense of reason.



A common misconception is science's "rejection" of "spiritual" ideas. Science has no problem with "unseen" areas or principals which affect the "normal world" (read just about anything on quantum mechanics or different dimensions). The reason modern science has generally rejected "spiritual ideas" is lack of evidence. If you want to propose spiritual activities that's fine, but you must back up the ideas, just as with any other idea, for it to be acceptable by science. If you can provide acceptable evidence that thunder is caused by powerful entities fighting, which is verified to explain the phenomena better then the other explanations, then the idea will be scientifically acceptable. The only assumptions made by science is that "the rules" are in some way consistent and observable (If they are not, what possible benefit could be had by trying to understand them?), so, to be scientifically acceptable, all ideas must provide observations (not unnecessarily direct) that support the idea . Without such evidence there would be nothing that separates anything just made up from anything else. It is the amount, quality, and testability of the evidence that determines how generally accepted an idea is by the scientific community, not whether it is "spiritual" or not. 



> I appeal to your submission to the fact that our physical universe can not have “evolved” out of nothing. It is axiomatic to claim the existence of molecules was created from another superior realm, else how did matter and energy first appear?
>
> 
>
> I’m sure you want to avoid the question because you can not have a satisfactory answer- other than “Nobody knows”.



I absolutely do not want to avoid this question, in fact it is a topic that I regularly discuss! Once again, I think the main problems here are definitions ("know" can be a quite subjective term. In a scientific sense the previous definition by Gould provides an excellent base, while "know" in an absolute sense really does not apply to human capabilities). Another major problem could be the "too big a topic" problem, discussing cosmological origins is fine, but trying to include it in a discussion of some specifics of biological evolution for example would be quite difficult. Think of trying to discuss how storms function while refusing to "get past" the limitations of our knowledge on how the sun affects them. While the suns effects are certainly important, our lack of knowledge of the specifics of its effects should not stop our learning about the more "mundane" elements. 

In fact in the last 50 years or so we have gained a significant understanding of how what we perceive as the universe came into being, and the principals which govern the processes. The subject is still much more speculative than many others, but we have learned much more then is generally thought. While many people have heard of the "big bang theory", the level of understanding we have recently gained is far more complex and detailed, involving many different field of study, then most people have any idea of. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/ provides a good basic introduction to this huge and complex subject. Again, if you would like I can provide much more detailed additional info. 



> But until you can see beyond the small visible world and start to perceive greater things, we would only have that circular conversation going round and round. I appeal to your reason- think ascendently, abandon your dogma and start answering the question that currently has no answer for you.



Again, this is a misconception. When most people hear a scientist or scientifically minded person respond to the question of the origins of the universe with "I don't know", they mistake the "I don't know, in an absolute sense" concept and ignore "but we have a reasonably good idea considering the current state of our resources". An even more important idea is that we are continuing to find out more, so what reason is there to abandon the possess which is working in this area and has and is working in the other areas where it is applied?



> Otherwise, nothing constructive can come from us striving over the origins and changes in matter, energy and the animal kingdom. Factor in the importance of indigenous information contained in the body of the universe, from DNA to celestial mechanics.



Many constructive things can come from such discussions. It is not a requirement to know how a process developed to learn from/ about its workings. Consider all we have learned about storms completely independently of knowing if the atmosphere formed from out gassing, impacting meteors, or magical creation. Knowing the origins can certainly be helpful, leading to greater and easier understanding of the current phenomena, but it is far from a requirement. 



> In the end, people will believe what they want to believe. What is it that you want to believe?



This seems another definitional miscommunication. I try and "believe" only in the sense of giving provisional acceptance of an idea based on the quality and quantity of the data supporting it (and, practically of course, how much time I'm willing to devote to it). I think that the standard usage of "belief", where an idea is kept regardless of available data, is bad and a significant determent to our society (although it's probably less so now that in any other time in human history). While there are certainly things I would like to be true, I think and hope that my actions are based on what is known to be most likely. In general I think that people only "believe what they want to believe" when they refuse to change their concepts that they are comfortable with when presented with information showing something they are less comfortable with to be more likely. This is what traditional faith encourages and it seems to be quite detrimental. 



> 
>
> All my best,
>
> 
>
> M..
>
> 
>
> 



I hope we can continue this discussion and towards that end I will bring up a topic I would like you to address.

>From the 10 Arguments against Evolution handout:


>
> #1 SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (emergence of life from non-living material) has never been observed. All observation has show that life comes only from life. It is consistent enough to bring about the Law of Biogenesis.
>


Do you know that the "law of Biogenesis" refers to the disproving of a theory predating "Darwinian" evolution, and that it is supporting of modern evolution? If so, why would you consider it relevant to include on the paper called 10 arguments against evolution? 

Although the topic of how life started is important and interesting, how do you consider it relevant to the subject of the modern theory of evolution, which does not deal with the origin of life? Would you consider all the theories and principals we now have for weather prediction pointless and not worthy of improving and using because we don't absolutely know exactly how the atmosphere formed? 

Are you aware of how scientists have shown "life coming from non life" and that this topic is one largely of how life is defined?

What is your understanding of the definition of life?






Have a good day and get some rest!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Greetings,

M wrote:
>
> Hi <Author>:
>
>
>
> Thanks for your response. I've noticed that you really write well.

Thank you. But.....

> Still,

Ah ha! I knew it! ;)

> your definition of science is in question. What is real science? Today it is a group of elitists who are intolerant of peripheral concepts to their "main stream" reality. I believe that truth is often found at the grass roots, not always in the towers of self congratulatory academia. In fact, I am suspicious of people who confidently profess having all the answers and who ostracize those that don't come into conformity.
>

I also am very skeptical of people who claim absolute knowledge. I can't offhand think of any modern mainstream scientists who fit that description however. Even "extreme" scientists, such as those claiming global warming is going to kill off the human race, generally make disclaimers about variables. Now many, especially those not "media savvy", will short hand "overwhelming evidence" to "we know this is true", but if you look at their actual work you will see that their claims are balanced to the evidence. Also they will rarely make even "shorthand" absolute claims outside of their field. Now people will make offhand statements that are inexact, and some people will just make incorrect statements, but I would like to know what specific statements you have heard which have given you such a negative impression.
A common misconception I hear is about science "ignoring" an idea. Although trying new methods and explanations is critical to good science, at least as important is the rejection of ideas which fail to meet standards. If an idea is supported by "its obvious", "I believe its correct", "this other theory is wrong", "if its not correct I won't be happy" but not by reproducible data, consistent observations (not necessarily direct), and verifiable predictive claims, or even if it just doesn't work as well as another idea, then it will not ultimately be accepted by the general scientific community. A claim that an accepted theory is wrong and a new idea is correct is going to have to show significant, verifiable, and reproducible evidence to back it up, otherwise it will be rejected. As it should. If science did not use the best available theory, but the one that people liked the most or talked about the most, then science would work as well as all the previous methods used to learn about the world. That is to say it wouldn't work well at all. This is not "elitists who are intolerant of peripheral concepts" but the only way science can get the results it has. If a rejected idea can be supported with new data then it can be reconsidered, but the new data still must meet standards.
To be perfectly honest "grass roots" efforts really don't work much in most scientific research. We have so much knowledge in so many fields that the number of discoveries made by "amateurs" is quite small by comparison to those that have spent years learning the basics of their field (although these rare occasions do generally get much more press). While it is true that an outsider will sometimes provide some helpful idea, that idea must still pass those same scientific tests or be rejected.

> Everyone has a world view of reality. So do I. It is mental tug of war pushing and pulling to impress people with the rational qualities of one's beliefs.

In the "court of public opinion" this is unfortunately true far too often, and far less rationally as well. In the "Court of science" however, it ultimately does not matter what one's beliefs are or how impressive they are, only how well the idea works. Now impressiveness and familiarity will make the going smoother, but ultimately the scientific process will sift the facts out.

> However, in the final analysis, you're right. It comes down to what a person is comfortable with.

I think you are misinterpreting what I meant. Staying with an idea just because you are comfortable with it, when better, less comfortable, ideas are available, is bad and the opposite of the scientific approach. It is probably true that most people would rather be comfortable than correct however.

> Certainly calling today's scientific consensus into question is not a comfortable position on my part.

The problem here is that, at least with the 10 vs evolution arguments, you are not "calling today's scientific consensus into question", you are attacking ideas that haven't been a scientific consensus for 150 years or ever.

> Indeed as an atheist, YOU are on the comfortable bandwagon. We are as disparate as the Animal Kingdom and Plant Kingdom. Both are alive but are very different in many ways. Our dissimilar views on life, beginnings and change over time, all come down to "directed" or "not directed", intentional or accidental. The minutia is meaningless without agreement on the fundamental.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that you can't discuss the evidence for or against something unless you have already come to an absolute conclusion about it. I would have to say that the point of discussing the minutia is to determine what conclusion it points to. In other words, we have to see what the preponderance of the evidence indicates the conclusion is. Even if you limit the conclusion to mean the origin of the subject, if you don't learn how it works how are you going to find out anything about it, no less its origin? What process do you use to arrive at the conclusion/ origin in the first place?

> An underpinning foundation of evolution is that change is undirected, resulting from natural selection.

This really is not correct. There is nothing that prohibits "direction" from being a part of evolution, only "undetectable direction".
It is true that most of the data we have points to natural processes (of which natural selection is only a part of) being how the different functions developed, with the remainder currently having insufficient data to make a conclusion about. Although the fact that, as more data was gathered, all of the previous "mysteries" were solved by natural methods, without need of "magical intervention", does indicate that the remaining problems will be solved in the same way. Not knowing exactly how every function developed is not a valid argument for another solution, particularly if the current theory, as more data is gained, continues to explain more and more of the "gaps". A competing theory must be better at explaining how things work than the other theories to be valid, not just point out that other theories are not perfect.

> The law of biogenesis says life, at the outset, is directed. That is why biogenesis was my first argument. The implication is that physical life descended from spiritual life.

Ok, now I'm hurt. Either you didn't read either of my previous discussions of the "law" of biogenesis, or you have information about it that you are not sharing. To re-recap, the "law" refers to a series of experiments which were conducted about 150 years ago to show that, for example, moths did not come from rotten cloth, worms from mud, ect. It has nothing to do with modern theories about how complex chemical processes become simple life, if for no other reason then they didn't even know what molecules were, no less how living ones differed from nonliving ones. There is absolutely no implication for or against "spiritual life", only the evidence that an old idea was wrong.

This is the type of thing I was referring to when I stated that you were not making arguments about evolution. The "law of biogenesis" has no more to do with modern evolution than disproving the idea that magnets keep people on the Earth has to do with the theory of gravity.



>
> God is intuitively evident to all people. We must force ourselves to believe otherwise. The deception we inflict upon ourselves amounts to an alternative religion, one of dogmas and rules, piety and PC, rearrangement of things observed to fit a preconceived notion.

Well, that's an ... interesting ... assertion. This goes back to my previous emails point about common definitions. If you are defining god as Einstein did, the forces of the universe, then you could say that humans have an instinct for order, for very good natural reasons of course. If you are defining god as the christian god well, I've never heard of anyone coming up with the 10 commandments at birth. Humans and most "higher" animals learn the most when they are young, and they learn uncritically. If you teach a child that the world is flat, they will usually believe it until strongly shown that its not true (& maybe even after that). Intuition is just what we have grown up thinking is true from our limited interaction with a minuscule part, time, and state of the universe. We intuitively think that a rock is solid, when in truth it is 99% empty space. Only by accepting the scientific method (what works, regardless of what we wish would work) and abandoning our comfortable "intuitive understanding" have we been able to make any significant amount of progress in understanding how things work.

> It is the religion of atheism- which is humanism.

Atheism simply means without theism, without the belief in a god or gods. Humans are born atheist, they have no belief in theism, they must be taught it. Lacking training in the scientific method and the data to derive answers, a humans instinctive curiosity may often lead them to conclude "I make things, therefore something must have made me", but this is the same "intuitive understanding" that could also lead to "the stars must be pinpricks in a giant dome above me" . Humanism is a philosophy that does not require atheism. Nether are religions, if for no other reasons (and there are many other reasons) then they do not require worship (by any reasonable definition of the word) of any entity or entities nor do they require adherence to a doctrine supposedly imposed by said entity or entities.

> Those who offer their lives to the pursuit of this religion comfort themselves in the power of the human mind. The whole evolution myth is elaborate and full of interesting suppositions which make for good intellectual fodder.
>
>
>
> But, in the end it is incredible arrogance and elitism that blinds people into thinking they are masters of the universe. Humanism is a kind of idolatry, elevating mankind to god status.

Masters of the universe???? god status????? Seriously, are you referring to evolution as depicted in comic books? Because I am at a total loss as to how you could get even "lord of the universe" from living for an incredibly short time on an unbelievably small spot. Particularly when you compare this to the idea that an entity (more powerful compared to humans than humans are to an amoeba) created a universe 14-20 billion light years in radius, with trillions of galaxies, each with billions of solar systems, just so humans could occupy a small percentage of a single planet for a few thousand years. Is there a stronger definition for "incredible arrogance and elitism"?

> We believe we can achieve world peace through our noble efforts. We think we can enforce equality and politically correct mind control through our benevolent will. We think we have altered our climate and have the power to change it again.

Absolute political states? Well we might be able to impose them, but it probably would be costly and horrific. However, completely aside from environmentalists barely scientific ideas, we absolutely Can change our climate. We definitely have the technology to send up a hundreds of miles in radius "umbrella/ mirror" that would tremendously increase or decrease the amount of sunlight the Earth receives. It would just cost trillions of dollars and we don't have a good enough reason to do it. Now if this fits your definition of god status then I can understand your point a bit, but I don't know anyone even vaguely atheistic that would consider such a capability worthy of worship.

>
> Who do we think we are? Certainly, God made man in His image. But humanists have made God in their image, turning the Creator of all things into a creature of their imagination; a creature subservient to almighty man.
>
>
>
> The finer points of the mystery of God can be debated and searched out and learned. But only the fool has said in his heart "there is no God".
>
> "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

I think it is interesting that you have taken a statement that definitionally makes any who disagree (for whatever reason) wrong and have used it to support an argument about how those who use the scientific method are arrogant and closed minded.
Give it some thought. Do you really believe that people who hold (at the very least as an ideal) that the way to find out what is true in our universe is to use the ideas that are best supported by the data we have available regardless of whether those ideas are ones they like, are more arrogant then those that publicly state that only facts which support the beliefs they have grown up with are valid? I really would like to know your thinking on this.

>
> The truly wise of this age all know and seek to understand God. The great scientists of our time all believe in "magical creation".

The phrase "great scientists of our time" is obviously quite subjective, but offhand I can't think of any who I would place in the top 10 who fit that description. I assume that you are thinking of statements from those like Einstein and Hawkings about "knowing the mind of god", but they are quite clear that they are not referring to a deity god, but a god iconifing the laws and forces in our universe.
Perhaps you are comparing the big bang theory with "magical creation", in which case I can only conclude you have not done any research into the topic and learned what the theory actually claims, instead using what the characterture purported by its opponents claims. It is easy to honestly critique the strawman of an idea when you don't know what the actual idea is, but researching the idea and finding out that you have not been addressing the actual idea but instead a characterture designed to be destroyed can be uncomfortable.

> Only intellectual counterfeits hide behind pop science to mask their fear of being looked down upon. But courage is the mastery of fear, something of which is in diminishing supply these days within the scientific community and elsewhere.
>
>
>
> <Author>, stop deceiving yourself. I don't know if God will have mercy on you and reveal Himself. But I pray that He does.
>
>

It seems that you do not interact with any who do not share your beliefs. Perhaps lunch can change this!

First off, if someone said "You only don't acknowledge Thor because you fear the frost giants will attack you", what would your reaction be? Yes there are those who are "mad at god" or some such who claim they are atheists, but those that actually fit the definition are no more worried about "being looked down upon" by a god then you are worried about Santa not bringing you presents this year. Obviously there is no way to absolutely prove that I or anyone else truly thinks this way, but perhaps you can take it on faith.

This quote might help you as well.:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

- Stephen F Roberts

> Would you like to have lunch with me sometime? Perhaps we could discuss some of these things. I'll buy. Just let me know.
>
>
> All my best,
>
>
>
> M..

I would still be pleased if you would address the issue brought up in these 3 emails:

>
> #1 SPONTANEOUS GENERATION (emergence of life from non-living material) has never been observed. All observation has show that life comes only from life. It is consistent enough to bring about the Law of Biogenesis.
>
>
> First off, the "law of biogenesis" is not a scientific "law", it is a summery/ "headline" of research conducted by Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) and others in the 19th century which showed that modern living organisms do not spontaneously grow from non living matter or "old life". A conclusion that agrees completely with evolution and modern abiogenic theories.
>
> It should also be noted that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution is only concerned with what happened (and is happening) after life arose, regardless of whatever method it came about by.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
>
> The fact that we have not observed "life from non life" is not surprising given what we know of the process, but we have found that the generation of the building blocks of life is quite possible in an "early earth" environment and we have many well backed theories about how these primitive forms could become the life of today.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
>

>
>
> Do you know that the "law of Biogenesis" refers to the disproving of a theory predating "Darwinian" evolution, and that it is supporting of modern evolution? If so, why would you consider it relevant to include on the paper called 10 arguments against evolution?
>
> Although the topic of how life started is important and interesting, how do you consider it relevant to the subject of the modern theory of evolution, which does not deal with the origin of life? Would you consider all the theories and principals we now have for weather prediction pointless and not worthy of improving and using because we don't absolutely know exactly how the atmosphere formed?
>
> Are you aware of how scientists have shown "life coming from non life" and that this topic is one largely of how life is defined?
>
> What is your understanding of the definition of life?
>
>

Have a good day and see you in a few weeks!