but then in the same breath they say that abiogensis is the only explanation for how life began...even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'
So this is the point im making....creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.
Unfortunately i dont beleive that evolutionists really do separate the view that abiogensis was the cataclyst to evolution. I think the comments made in this thread (along with my link to Darwins letters to his associates) shows that to be the case.
I think part of the confusion here is that the people replying to you saying 'it MUST have happened this way' are including divine creation under the definition of abiogenesis, while you're clearly excluding it. That's what they mean when the say abiogenesis is a certainty.
Imagine if I said the bible has nothing to do with God, they are two different subjects, unlinked. I doubt you'd believe me.
The question to ask yourself is 'Can there be a God is the Bible's wrong?' Obviously, there can be, and it's silly to suggest otherwise. Even though everyone who believes the Bible believes in God, the existence of God isn't reliant solely on the Bible, and rubbishing the Bible isn't enough to do away with him. Similarly, there can be evolution without a naturalistic abiogenesis, and doing away with life emerging from a pool of primordial gunk by normal chemical processes is not enough to do with the theory of evolution. It is not reliant on a natural abiogenesis.
As for Darwin and his 'breathing life', he later claimed to regret the choice of phrase, writing:
quote:
I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant appeared by some wholly unknown process.It is mere rubbish thinking, at present, of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter.
So, Darwin clearly did not consider abiogenesis and the origin of life a part of evolutionary theory. He considered the whole matter 'rubbish thinking', these being mysteries the science of his time was even less capable of penetrating than they are now.
™ Version 4.2
