On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, "Ray Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-------------snip----------- > I reject completely the notion that the first cell arose spontaneously for > three main reasons. First, there is not the *slightest* hard evidence for > this--it's just a creation myth told by folks who *call* themselves > scientists. Second, no one has been able to show, experimentally, how such > a thing might have happened. All such experiments have demonstrated > with finality that no conceivable mixture of chemicals, subjected to no > conceivable energy inputs, will ever produce anything more sophisticated > that roofing tar. Third, the existing science of chemistry can show, > with proper scientific rigor, that it is theoretically *impossible* for > proteins, and other complex organic molecules, to arise spontaneously. > In other words, we not only cannot demonstrate the spontaneous development > of complex organics in the lab, we *can* explain why it does not, and > cannot, ever happen. To believe in the spontaneous development of life > on earth is not just *non* science, it is *anti* science. All of which helps to explain WHY??? Sir Fred Hoyle (a devout and practicing Evolutionist) made the comment (I paraphrase) that, "to believe that all this complexity arose by mere chance is equivalent to believing that a 747 can be constructed by a tornado blowing through a junkyard."... ...and... WHY??? Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA, and also a militant, devout and practicing Evolutionist) seriously proposed the theory that life on earth arose from microbes, designed by extraterrestrials, and shipped here in space ships. This IS a serious theory called Directed Pan-Spermia.. .....gregy > Ray Andrews, > Vancouver, Canada -- This mail was sent by a user of Arachne - The Ultimate Internet Client
