AdamD

Interesting claims, runner. Particularly when they come from someone who had to cut-and-run from another thread because they couldn't back some similar assertions with anything credible.

It becomes very obvious that evolutionist have no logical answer for beginnings. Why bother going around the mulberry bush when you can't even come up with a sensible answer on beginnings. Your blind faith is incredible.

Ozbib - sorry, I only just looked back at your comment on my commnet.. I was intriged to read that bit you had from the Oxford philosophy reference. Without seeing the whole thing I can't be sure but I suspect whoever wrote that is pulling or pushing something.. the chemical stuff it refers to is the alchemy I mentioned. Newton was a nut about the subject.. his Principia, however, is a cornerstone of pre-modern (ie Newtonian) physics.. the ideas he put forward were not seriously modified until Einstein.. extend gravity beyond the moon? What! That guy is raving.. but I must look it up.. tnks for brining it to my attention..

Dear runner,

What did that have to do with the price of fish?

Considering there is objective evidence for the natural explanations, and no objective evidence for the supernatural explanations, the faith in the supernatural explanations is infinitely more blind and the answers infinitely less sensible.

Speaking of fish though, we’re off topic here.

Curmudgeon, I don't think that the claim in the Stanford Encyclopaedia is that Newton's theory was seriously modified because of the problem of the moon's orbit--rather, the problem was not enough for people to dismiss the theory, because the theory was so successful. My point is that the philosophy of science is more complex and sophisticated than Mark Lawons appears to be aware, so that the grounds on which he dismisses Marx are not solid. (Freud is another matter--he cheated over the evidence.)

To dismiss the whole of Marx's output so cavalierly is mind-blowing. Which theories are being rejected? That of ideology? The early theory of alienation? Economic determinism? Or is it only that a communist society is inevitable? Or that it would be good (if that is how Marx is to be interpreted)?

I think you will find that the Stanford Philosophy Department is pretty reliable.

You might note that Newton himself revised his Principia--not the basic three laws of motion however.

Runner! I know why you wont debate me on these questions and its for the simple fact you have read my posts! I have explained very clearly on how god evolved with the human mind.

Evidence is everything! and the fact still remains, that you do have any!

Sheep people! but don't worry runner! we will wait for you.

All the best my friend.

EVO2

'If evidence is everything then Darwin's theory of natural selection is fundamentally flawed, to the extent that it makes ontological claims without reference to ontological evidence (which is a virtual impossibility).
The assumptions which underpin Darwin's theories of evolution are undermined by their inability to answer the simple question which is -

"why should life perpetuate itself?"'

Darwin's Theory doesn't have to answer 'why'. Simply describing HOW will suffice.

But to answer your question Bulkman; life perpetuates itself for the same reason that galaxies and solar systems perpetuate themselves across the Universe - because 'blind' natural processes specify that they can.