No, they *claim* to know. But without *evidence* to support those claims, they are meaningless claims and nothing more.
That isn't knowledge. it is opinion. Knowledge requires evidence and testing.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Recommended reading for evolution?
- Thread starter Araceli Cianna
- Start date
No, they *claim* to know. But without *evidence* to support those claims, they are meaningless claims and nothing more.
That isn't knowledge. it is opinion. Knowledge requires evidence and testing.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Exactly right. There is no evidence or testing to prove how the first living thing came to be. Science may have ideas and theories and religion has ideas and theories. Neither has more proof than the other.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There are no religious theories that I know of. Claiming that something is a theory claims that one has tests that could prove it to be wrong. Do you have examples of these religious theories? What reasonable tests could you do involving them?
And yes, there is evidence supporting abiogenesis. You really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence. The evidence is merely not conclusive yet. But the abiogenesis side is at least way ahead of the creationist side in this matter. They at least have some evidence for their claims.
ETA: And technically there are no theories of abiogenesis yet. The work is still in the hypothetical stage. But since these are testable scientific hypotheses the concept still has scientific evidence that supports it.
Wrong. There is evidence. We have the early fossils. We have the data that is even in our own cells concerning a RNA world. We have the chemistry.
What we do not have is *conclusive* evidence.
The ideas of religion, as opposed to those of science, are evidence-less. They are *pure* speculation, as opposed to being *informed* speculation.
So, while there is not *proof*, there is evidence and knowledge about parts of the process that are found via science.
Religion, on the other hand, only has 'goddidit'. That isn't even a real explanation.
You clearly don't understand the scientific method or the current research on abiogenesis.
Research "proof" and "theory."