I stand corrected.
Ok just answer this:
Karandhara. Modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically.
Srila Prabhupada. And I say to them, “If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can’t you create life biochemically in your laboratories?”
And your response to this link is…?
Evidently, the Sahib gleaned his knowledge of evolution from watching episodes of The Flintstones.
There’s nothing in this nonsense that challenges Darwin. It would only be convincing to someone who has already decided not to believe Darwinism. The “Devotee” is asking some valid questions (though clearly just to give Srila a chance to explain his faith) but if I was him, I would have lost patience long ago and called Srila a fool determined to be ignorant.
I’m mostly not accustomed to two kilometers-long witnessing posts. That’s just unreadable.
I’m just wondering what Darwinism has to do with Abiogenesis.
Hey Moti, this board may be an excellent opportunity for you to start to learn how to think for yourself. Don’t blow it. 
Karandhara is mistaken about the level of advancement of Western science.
We are also not able to create a star in the laboratory, therefore Hertzprung-Russelism is clearly disproven.
Haven’t folks already been officially called on the carpet for “witnessing” posts that consist of nothing but Bible verses? How is this different?
What, is this the new version of the “Who’s on First” routine?
Is this any sort of serious question anyway? I mean, the core of the question relies on the “if your science is so advanced” bit. But this isn’t any sort of legitimate logical point. Science today is more advanced than yesterday, but that doesn’t make it omnipotent. Science is just a process we use to figure things out. It can know some things, but not know others. And it can know things that we currently lack the technology to make use of.
So this is less of a question than just an insult. It’s the grownup version of “if you’re so smart, how come you’re not rich?”
Worse, it doesn’t have much relevance to the issue. The issue is whether there is good evidence for life developing via chemical processes. Looking for this evidence is an entirely different endeavor than trying to reproduce these processes in the lab (I mean, most guesses are that the key original processes took thousands of years at least: how are we supposed to reproduce that?). Indeed, most of the attempts to chemically construct simple life use processes that are far too fast and sophisticated to be similar to those that could have been at work in the early earth.
Sorry, the format of the quoted text seems to have interfered with my reading comprehension. Please change my reference above to “Srila Prabhupada” instead of “Karandhara.”
Damn, DrFidelius said it much better.
“If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can’t you create life biochemically in your laboratories”
OK, personally my science is not so advanced.
If your god is so advanced why can’t he create life biochemically? Hadn’t thought of that one had you?
Meh.
As soon as scientists succeed in creating life from scratch (life in the full sense - polio is a virus and doesn’t meet everybody’s definition of a living organism" in a laboratory. all that will happen is that the anti-evo folks will stop syaing “It can’t be done” and start saying “See? It requires an intelligent causal agent!”
Man, now I’m hungry for a decent curry…
My goodness: he’s just disproved virtually every oher chemical process in my body!
Moti? Are you there? Moti! Mooooootiii!
sound of crickets chirping
Ah well.
.:Nichol:.
**
The monkey is not extinct therefore nothing is extinct? You buy that argument Moti?
I hope you haven’t run away, we have this thing about “fighting ignorance” here and apparently you still need alot of work.
A) This is not a criticism of Darwinism. It is a statement that science is not as advanced as we supposedly think it is.
B) The first time it happened, it took hundreds of millions of years. We’ve been at it for a couple of decades.
C) We’re working on it, with some progress being made.
D) This is a classic example of the “God of the gaps” fallacy, wherein you assume that something can be explained by science or religion in a mutually exclusive manner, i.e. if science can’t explain it, it must have been done by God. The problem with this attitude is that science is constantly expanding, so your God’s power is constantly shrinking. That’s not a God I want to follow.