abiogenesis

Hi Greyseal. I'd have to disagree with the usage of theory in this context. In general, a theory is a framework used to explain data, or sets of data, which we see, collect, and analyze in the world around us, as well as to predict new observations. Again, maybe we're talking semantics here, but a more appropriate term may be at best, hypothesis and at worst, conjecture, IMO. A hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess which can be tested, tested and tested some more until it has been tested so much that, in time, it may become a theory.A supernatural explanation would have a bear of a time attaining the level of theory, at least from a respected scientific standpoint. But I'm being redundant...Have a good one.

As is most biblical "evidence" we're asked to swallow as fact with nothing more than faith as basis for such.Have a good one.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Hey marc9000. No offense, but please, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a creationist jawing on about the "worldwide conspiracy" of evolutionism. You know, that conspiracy of immense proportions that not one of the millions of geologists, paleontologists, biologists, physicists, anthropologists, etc over the years has ever inadvertently let slip? Ever? Amazing, no?Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that as yet, ID has brought nothing to the table to advance the study of science specifically, or in general. Let's, for argument's sake, assume that someday ID may finally prove itself in "some" way as to be taught (or at least, addressed) in schools as mainstream science is today. I think the scientific community, for better or worse, would be reluctant to allow ID equal (or any) footing because they would see it as a bit of a slippery slope. What's to stop the YEC, geocentrist, flat earth or other crazy snake-oil type crowds from crying foul the minute science concedes even a minute portion of the playing field to ID? Therein lies the rub. To science, anything involving magic is just that: magic. It's. Just. Not. Science. Yes, science is in the "driver's seat", but not because of any athiest bias, marc9000, but because of one thing: CREDIBILITY. What's accepted scientifically is not based on Dawkins or any other athiest's popular literature, but on years and years of evidence, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. Whether you, marc9000, accept that evidence is your own decision, but harping on about how you're so upset that magic isn't equally accepted as such, advances your case not at all.Stereotyping science as you do, as some club where the motto might be: "Athiests only need apply", is disingenuous at best. I can think of more than a few religious scientists, some who post on this forum, who would love nothing more than to see actual, verifiable evidence of a creator. Don't you understand that good scientific study looks for all evidence, and even if you don't believe it, would include magic if it was unequivocal? To be fair, I would concede the point that there are also some unethical folk who would deny or otherwise conceal said evidence. Lucky for science, we won't need to worry about that, eh? Or logically, I can conclude that it was purchased by creationists of that time looking to disprove, discredit and otherwise debunk this fledgeling theory. I can play the conspiracy theory game, too. (BTW, they've largely failed in their efforts...)Have a good one.Edited by Apothecus, : No reason given.Edited by Apothecus, : grammar

Hey there marc9000. And I'll make it a hat trick, marc9000: of what evidence do you speak? I'm sure it'll be good, god of the gaps stuff...Have a good one.