Hi ICANT,
Would you agree that for evolution to take place you would first need a life form?
This is an irrelevant point, we already know that life forms exist and there is a long fossil record that supports that. The theory of evolution explains this fossil record.
The point is, abiogenesis and evolution are mutually exclusive and explain their own set of independent data. That is the point of the OP, that the theories don't deal with the same evidence.
If there were no life forms, there would be no fossil record and obviously no need for a theory that explains the fossil record. But there is life, there is a fossil record and there is a theory that explains it.
Would you agree that if abiogenesis is impossible there would be no life form to evolve?
Abiogenesis is a theory that exists
because there is a first life form, therefore if it is wrong then it would only be wrong because another theory has taken its place and explains the data better.
But regardless, the theory of evolution, seperately from abiogenesis, is the theory that explains the fossil record - a fact that is observed to exist. So neither one being shown wrong affects the validity of the other - each one has its own set of data that is independent of the other.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
