>> 2.    the generation of life as we know it from entirely inanimate
>> matter

> This statement here shows that you don't understand evolution.

No, it doesn't. But that's a reasonably reasonable conclusion. What it 
shows is that I was being sloppy in order to be slightly more concise 
(never very concise :[) ) than otherwise and I decided to take the 
'vector sum' of the various requirements. What Evolution actually is, 
is of course uncertain, as the big gun evolutionists tear each others 
throats out over what the true faith is. But close enough, as you 
note, Evolution is the process by which life as we know it was arrived 
at starting from the first life form(s).

> The creation
> of life is not something that the theory of Evolution says anything 
> about;
> these are two completely seperate areas of science!

Of science indeed. Non Popperian of necessity. So far anyway. One of 
these days maybe not. Maybe.

>> >Evolution (and
>> >>that word covers a lot of ground)

>> and that's a problem

> I don't see it as a problem. Why shouldn't something that is 
> complex, with
> many facets, also be explained by a theory that is more than a 
> simple
> statement?

What I meant was that the word is used very loosely and variably and 
without formal definition, and means different things to different 
people.Parts of what some people means are PS while others are NPs. 
Knowing what someone is talking about when they say "Evolution": is 
essential to a sensible discussion. At a minimum it needs to be broken 
down into. Natural Selection (PS), and speciation from 1st life using 
natural selection as the mechansiom (NPs.)


        RM 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist