science has upheld Abiogenesis as the only tenable possibility for an origin of life simply because thatâ€™s where the objective observations and mathematical models of multiple fields of study have pointed us.
Sorry to be picky, and by the way great post, it was very to the point and I doubt AOK will respond with anything but his/her usual semantical bullshit but, isn't Panspermia,
There potentially are many valid scientific or metaphysical explanations for the beginning of life.
I think this is the whole point to your line of thought, in that you don't know where to seperate the 2.
There are many valid scientific explanations for the beginning of life.
There are many valid metaphysical explanations for the beginning of life.
The 2 do not over lap. Abiogenesis, and/or the origin of life from chemicals, can ONLY be understood in a scientific sense. By invoking God you did nothing to explain the process by which these chemicals came to be, what we define, as 'life'.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky