Your attempts are unevidenced assertions that lack scientific credibility.
How can I show you evidence of something that never happened other have you provide evidence that it did??? Ponder that notion deeply.
We have evidence, just not absolute proof. As predicted, we have been able to produce the first step. You are right, in that it does not prove anything; however, it does show that if we were right the first time, we may be right again.
The demonstration you seek is what is currently being studied in the field of abiogenesis. If you have evidence that trumps what they are doing, show it...
Agreed, that scientists are working on it. All I said from the beginning was that it was not proven. Why are you guys fighting me tooth and nail on this? It is a FACT that it has never left the theoretical stage.
See above.
any suggestions how that happened?
No, I wish I did know. Like I said, there are some compelling theories with the study that have caught my eye. I am only taking exceptions that people speak about non-proven theory as if it is signed, sealed, and delivered. That's not right.
You are right. Abiogenesis is not "signed, sealed, and delivered." However, it
is the best option we've got right now. What are these other theories you're talking about? I'd like to hear them.
No matter how you slice it, whether god or natural, life came from none living elements, right? God, if that's the best suggestion you have, still had to use non-living matter, right?
So whats your real issue?
My real issue??? I don't like dogmatic religious zealots who make a mockery of science and refuse to listen to reason and I don't like atheist hypocrites who are too enthralled by atheism itself that it's become a pseudo-religion complete with its own bible-thumping creation story. What's the difference between the two, honestly?
Since when was
We aren't entirely sure, but we are studying it an insufficient answer? It's almost like scientists feel compelled to come up with any theory so long as they have an answer.
But damn, if you don't know, you don't know! That's okay! But don't just make shit up. That's just unethical.
That's how I really feel.
Good points.
However, I feel that you may be overstressing the "athiest zealots," as you percieve them. If you are referring to people who try to convince others that God doesn't exist, then I'm fine with them as long as they don't purposely offend anyone and as long as they use rational arguments- not emotional/social ones.
Also, you may have taken abiogenesis too far- it is, as you have pointed out, only theory/hypothesis- but it in no way exists to make a mockery of religion. Facts do not conform themselves to peoples' wants. If abiogenesis or something else unrelated to religion is discovered to be true, or vice -versa, that doesn't mean that they are purposely there to prove someone wrong.
My real issue??? I don't like dogmatic religious zealots who make a mockery of science and refuse to listen to reason and I don't like atheist hypocrites who are too enthralled by atheism itself that it's become a pseudo-religion complete with its own bible-thumping creation story. What's the difference between the two, honestly?
I would really like to ask here that, if you believe athiesm to be a (psuedo) religion, then what constitutes a religion in your mind? Just out of curiosity.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams
™ Version 4.2