Due to the lack of conclusive evidence of how life may have emerged from nonliving matter on Earth, the alternative was proposed that life may have been introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled...
What is the basis for the claim that the creation process is intentionless? How can you tell? Is that because we cannot see evidence of purpose, design and functional structures of extreme complexity that absolutely dwarfs the most sophisticated structures ever designed/built by man?
Absolutely, the Oparin-Haldane theory was in the 1920s, even the famous Miller-Urey experiment was in 1952. Darwin himself suggested earlier in the 19th century that life might have emerged in “warm little ponds”.
The claim for lack of research tools doesn’t change the fact that regardless of...
Both creationism and abiogenisis are equal in the sense that the mechanism is unknown (and may never be known).
But I don’t agree with the unevidenced assumption that first life form was exceedingly simple compared to simplest form of life known to science today (single-celled organism) and the...
The Abiogenesis problem has multiple levels of complexity. The simple organic compounds/ Amino acids, the more complex organic molecules/the chemistry of abiotic nucleotide synthesis of RNA and DNA, then the complex functionalities/live processes of the assumed last universal common ancestor...
This is a false dichotomy; your denial of God is not a proof of Abiogenisis.
The results are here logically means, there must be a causal influence even if the cause/mechanism is not known, but unknown ≠ Abiogenisis.
The reason you reject God as the absolute causal influence is because you...
So, you acknowledged it. There is no argument. I stated a fact, you agreed. That’s it. You refuted nothing.
Do you mean it was already accepted as a scientific theory, but that acceptance was never published?
Yes, the theory failed to move beyond the hypothetical stage in more than 100 years...
I do. see # 2465 and demonstrate your response.
Isn’t the 8th grade still higher than the 4th grade? :rolleyes:(See #2497), how can you teach a higher grade? Even your nonsense is still more pathetic that your attempts of debate. You’re pathetic.
Regardless of any claimed editing, He did come up with it.
So, the chances are either the 99% chance of a theory that failed to be accepted as a scientific theory after more than 100 years of scientific research or 1% Aliens from outer space. How pathetic?
There is. Demonstrate your evidence...
Nonsense, what other source of life do you suggest? Do you mean aliens from outer space? Dawkins claimed the same.
It’s again your irrelevant pathetic fourth grader argument “I did bad, but you did worth”, my belief or any other belief has nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed...
With respect to NDE studies, I’m not talking about any belief, I’m only talking about the scientific consensus that the phenomenon is inexplicable under current paradigm. I’m talking about the facts, yet what you are talking about is merely your personal belief.
I’m not saying that NDEs are...
your tricks are more pathetic than your attempts of debate. My post #2465 is not even an old post so others may get confused what actually happened with it, it’s a very recent post that you repeatedly tried every pathetic excuse/trick to avoid responding to it, yet you have the audacity to claim...
You already stated that the SIMPLEST living system known to science today is exceedingly complex in comparison to your imaginary first living system (that allegedly started 3 billion years ago), yet you did not demonstrate how such evidenced complexity of life (even in its simplest...
Pathetic escape tactic as usual, I don’t expect anything else from you.
I would elaborate further for those who genuinely didn’t get the idea, but your pathetic tricks evidently show that you already got it. That said, if you want to be in denial, it’s your call.
if you can come with anything...
You don’t get it (you never did). Biology textbooks don’t use the word perfect or perfection. Not at all. It’s actually quite the opposite.
What I’m saying is that “Perfection” of system is a measure of its success in achieving its goal, if the first life had the vital systems/life processes...
Evolution is neither concerned nor can explain the first life but, and it’s a big but, if the first life is not possible, no evolution is possible.
The mechanisms of the modern synthesis have been disproved; this is not a matter for argument. I discussed the exact same with you before. See...
Not explanations, only trials for explanation that were neither plausible nor can have a consensus.
Your article said, " Despite several theories used to explain near-death experiences, getting to the bottom of what causes them is difficult.”..,..”Overall, chemical-based theories lack precision...
even if they didn’t say it but many proponents of evolution act as if Abiogenesis is an already established scientific theory.
Abiogenesis is the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago. The idea was taken as an axiom and it was the subject of scientific research for...