ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I have said nothing about religion.
That doesn't stop it from obviously being your motivation. Creationist attitudes and agendas are often obvious even when not stated.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I have said nothing about religion.
That doesn't stop it from obviously being your motivation. Creationist attitudes and agendas are often obvious even when not stated.
So, the fact that that the process of abiogenesis is unknown, is actually a religious treatise....................right.That doesn't stop it from obviously being your motivation. Creationist attitudes and agendas are often obvious even when not stated.
I don't know if abiogenesis will be proven, I believe it won't.
The process of abiogenesis is unknown. Fact
Depends on what "proven" is taken to mean, I guess. Mathematical or logical style proof? Probably not. Plausible and convincing arguments, much more likely.
After all, conditions in the big bang wouldn't have been consistent with life, in the biological sense. So if we accept big bang cosmology, that implies that there was a time at which no life existed in the entire universe. Today, we ourselves are proof that life does exist. Life from non-life.
True. I doubt that we will ever know for sure how life first appeared. Unless time-travel allows us to visit the very early Earth, we won't ever be able to observe the first steps in the origin of life.
Of course we can (and already are) hypothesizing about how it might have happened. Some of those hypotheses can even be tested. Various chemical mechanisms are proposed and laboratory experiments can show whether they are capable of producing the required products. We can try to learn more about conditions on the early Earth and try to determine whether the hypothesized chemical reactions would have taken place in the very ancient environment. Various pathways can be imagined to get from chemical reactions to cells, and evidences of those intermediate steps can be sought.
It's going to be hard though, and much of the needed evidence might no longer exist. It's never going to be a slam-dunk. We will never know with complete certainty how life first appeared.
That's not exactly an argument for divine creationism though.
I have noticed that some people cannot stand to be wrong or seen as wrong and they just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole without appearing to recognize their own efforts. That seems to happen a lot with authoritarian mindsets with a lot of emotional drive.Trolling.
All his ilk are capable of.
So, the fact that that the process of abiogenesis is unknown, is actually a religious treatise....................right.
You guys just cannot leave it alone as it is.
It certainly isn't my fault that science doesn't know how abiogenesis took place, nor establish that it did.
No. Abiogenesis is a reasonable position. It holds that there was a time when there was no life on Earth and, at some later date, there was. Oddly enough, Christian theology seems to agree.So, the fact that that the process of abiogenesis is unknown, is actually a religious treatise....................right.
You have evidence you believe points to abiogenesis. Fine. I said nothing about macro evolution.Nope - but you trying to make it so much of it, obviously is.
Oh, the irony...
But we have established (have very good evidence) that it did - evidence that, in part ("macro"-evolution), you have stated that you will not accept. There is plentiful evidence that the early earth was lifeless and that life arose and subsequently evolved into the diverse and complex forms we see today.
Are you objecting to cause-and-effect reasoning? Are you objecting to the quest for mechanism? Are you making a case for magic?No. Abiogenesis is a reasonable position. It holds that there was a time when there was no life on Earth and, at some later date, there was. Oddly enough, Christian theology seems to agree.
It's mechanism where they disagree. Science investigates mechanism, religion ignores it.
It certainly isn't my fault that science doesn't know how abiogenesis took place, nor establish that it did.
Je suis insulté!!!It is actually quite a hoot, like watching a raccoon with an egg, he can't break.
Valjean said:
Lack of full understanding of a phenomenon is not evidence for magic.
schmogie replied:]
I didn't say it was evidence of anything, I said it was not understood.
Some are.Aren't people arguing that the ToE is untrue because abiogenesis isn't understood and, thus, goddidit?
LOL !! You APPEAR to have the proper credintials to make that statement.Je suis insulté!!!
I've never met an egg I couldn't crack!
Hmmmm, so you challenge this statement, the process of abiogenesis is unknown?"We don't know how life started, therefore we know... (Goddidit.)"
The logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance.
Hmmmm, so you challenge this statement, the process of abiogenesis is unknown?
Or, are you just making a hypothetical argument, based on nothing in the statement, because you can?
Nope.So, the fact that that the process of abiogenesis is unknown, is actually a religious treatise....................right.
Are you a prophet?I doubt that we will ever know for sure how life first appeared.
We will never know with complete certainty how life first appeared.
I must add to it that it did not take much time for life to appear after the formation of Earth. Organic and life-building molecules are quite common in space. The formation of these molecules does not require any 'divine' help.There is plentiful evidence that the early earth was lifeless and that life arose and subsequently evolved into the diverse and complex forms we see today.