Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[gnostic]

Isn't that how a theory works? A theory is assumed, then tested for consistency with observations. If consistent, then it's accepted scientifically (UNTIL proven otherwise). If theism/intelligent design is a theory consistent with the understanding of the creation point at the big bang, the fine tuning/overall order of the world, historical records (many reasons to support the probability), why can't it be accepted until proven otherwise?

Creationism and intelligent design are not theories, because there are no testable or verifiable evidences FOR the existence of creator deity or designer.

Intelligent Design isn't testable because there are no evidences for Designer.

Where is the Designer? There are no more evidences for Designer than there are for tooth fairies or for leprechauns.

You are saying nature exists, therefore the Designer should exist too. That's just an unsubstantiated assumption and circular reasoning.

If ID was scientific, then they have to be able to present direct evidences for the existence of this Designer.

Unless you have actual verification of the Desiger's existence, then the Designer don't exist.

 

[gnostic]

If theism/intelligent design is a theory consistent with the understanding of the creation point at the big bang, the fine tuning/overall order of the world, historical records (many reasons to support the probability), why can't it be accepted until proven otherwise?

That's called FAITH, NoorNoor, not science.

Nothing is true, until they have been verified (tested or discovery of evidences).

 

[life.period]

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

Creation

I am a scientist I can tell you unequivocally that what you are saying, at least in my case, is nonsense.

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

I am Muslim .

I am not a scientist but mind is scientific .

I can differentiate between false and truth .


Holly Qur'an proved to me that it is authentic . What mentioned in it appear to be totally true .

I have mind and I have reason to believe there is creator . I don't adopt idea not proven yet like monkey turned to human .

If scientist claim thing they can not prove like Dawkins for more than twenty year that is troll.

When science prove Qur'an authentic they insist there is no God .


Evolution believe that world created it self by it self then who gave this world ability to create it self .


Random power doesn't result in such amazing world that amazed scientists and took years of their life.

If you throw cakes in a plate randomly it will be disaster .

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Creation

Great. Another one.

I am not a scientist but mind is scientific .

I doubt it.

I can differentiate between false and truth .

I don't think so.

Holly Qur'an proved to me that it is authentic .

Subjective experiences, emotional manipulation, religious dogma are not proof of anything except towards the art of psychological principles.

What mentioned in it appear to be totally true .

Really. I've never seen a winged horse or a djinn. Have you? You can provide irrefutable evidence of the existence of such fantastic creatures? A hair follicle? Something? No? Then you do not believe based on evidence. You believe based solely on the desire or compulsion to believe. That is not scientific and that is not a logical means to discern truth from untruth.

I don't adopt idea not proven yet like monkey turned to human .

They don't say that. You are debating an issue you know nothing about. The claim is that we ... AND monkeys ... evolved from a common ancestor.

When science prove Qur'an authentic they insist there is no God .

Science has dismantled your Qur'an.

Evolution believe that world created it self by it self then who gave this world ability to create it self .

Logical fallacy of Agenticity. Meaningless dribble.

If you throw cakes in a plate randomly it will be disaster .

Yep, and if we throw toothpicks on the ground, they won't spell a name; and if we run a tornado through a junkyard, its not going to create a Boeing 747; yadda yadda yadda. But if you put wood in an oxygenated atmosphere and subject it to enough heat, fire will create itself; no God needed; and when the fuel, heat or oxygen has been depleted, the fire will have created ash; no God needed. Poor examples, to be sure, but I'm neither a chemist nor a physicist.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm just going to put him on ignore at the get-go, why waste a whole lot of time and energy.

 

[NoorNoor]

Really. I've never seen a winged horse or a djinn. Have you? You can provide irrefutable evidence of the existence of such fantastic creatures? A hair follicle? Something? No? Then you do not believe based on evidence. You believe based solely on the desire or compulsion to believe. That is not scientific and that is not a logical means to discern truth from untruth

1- you assume "X"
2- You beleive in "X"
3- you use "X" to prove "Y"
4- you didn't prove "X"
5- "Y" is false

1- you assume that whatever can't be tested/falsified as none existent or not true.
(All facts/absolute existence or truth can be determined only through observations, testing, falsifying)
2- You believe the assumption that the limits of the empirical method are equal to the limits of absolute existence. (whatever is beyond this method is not acknowledged as existent/true from a scientific point of view)
3- you use this belief to prove the existence of God or any metaphysical existence as unscientific.
4- your basis of argument is the assumption of #1 that was neither proven nor can be tested/falsified.
5- your argument is false.

If the assumption of #1 can't be tested/falsified, then it's not scientific. Being unscientific, it can't be used as the basis to prove the metaphysical existence as unscientific. In addition, If the context is metaphysical existence, why are you looking for a hair follicle?

#1 itself is the basis for any thing scientific. What does that mean? Does it mean the scientific method itself is based on unscientific assumption (that is based solely on the desire or compulsion to believe)?

They don't say that. You are debating an issue you know nothing about. The claim is that we ... AND monkeys ... evolved from a common ancestor

There is no explanation of how life originated from no life or what type of reactions of basic elements could have created replicating molecules. There is no specific historical route by which life could have emerged was ever coined. There is no explanation of how a single living bacterium could have emerged from simple inorganic precursors, let alone a complex life consisting of trillions of cells that function in a coordinated manner. An honest scientist would admit that all of that is a great mystery.

Even If we ignore all of that and assume life somehow had a chance to exist, became able to grow /reproduce and then started to evolve as a response to environmental pressures, how would that explain the huge diversity of live within the exact same environment?

natural selection is identified as a process by which plants and animals can adapt to specific environmental pressures. But for an animal to adapt, first it should exist (to be alive). To be alive, depends on essentials functioning systems/organs (complex live model). If we consider the assumption that organs such as brain, lungs, heart, stomach did not exist at some point in time, """how would natural selection work to create such organs?"""prior existence of all of these organs is required to allow life, then the existence of this life may allow adaptation to an environment. Assumption of gradual development of essential organs over long period of time, is not logical. Absence of any of the essential organs would neither allow an animal to be alive nor to have an ability to evolve.

 

[gnostic]

An honest scientist would admit that all of that is a great mystery.

A real scientist would investigate and search for answer, through observation ( eg tests, evidences), regardless if there are mysteries or not. Seeking knowledge and attempting to explain WHAT it is and HOW it works, is what scientist supposed to do.

1. A scientist is to supposed to also test his explanation, to see if it is correct or incorrect,
2. or to find evidences that will either refute or validate his statements.

These are objective ways of determining the value of the hypothesis or theory.

He shouldn't rely on God, angels or jinns for such answer. If he did so, then it is no longer science and he is no longer a scientist.

Do you know why there are no great scientists among Muslims today?

They no longer have the inquiring minds, because they hide behind the superstitions and fable in the Qur'an.

 

[Sapiens]

1- you assume "X"
2- You beleive in "X"
3- you use "X" to prove "Y"
4- you didn't prove "X"
5- "Y" is false

1- you assume that whatever can't be tested/falsified as none existent or not true.
(All facts/absolute existence or truth can be determined only through observations, testing, falsifying)
2- You believe the assumption that the limits of the empirical method are equal to the limits of absolute existence. (whatever is beyond this method is not acknowledged as existent/true from a scientific point of view)
3- you use this belief to prove the existence of God or any metaphysical existence as unscientific.
4- your basis of argument is the assumption of #1 that was neither proven nor can be tested/falsified.
5- your argument is false.

If the assumption of #1 can't be tested/falsified, then it's not scientific. Being unscientific, it can't be used as the basis to prove the metaphysical existence as unscientific. In addition, If the context is metaphysical existence, why are you looking for a hair follicle?

#1 itself is the basis for any thing scientific. What does that mean? Does it mean the scientific method itself is based on unscientific assumption (that is based solely on the desire or compulsion to believe)?



There is no explanation of how life originated from no life or what type of reactions of basic elements could have created replicating molecules. There is no specific historical route by which life could have emerged was ever coined. There is no explanation of how a single living bacterium could have emerged from simple inorganic precursors, let alone a complex life consisting of trillions of cells that function in a coordinated manner. An honest scientist would admit that all of that is a great mystery.

Even If we ignore all of that and assume life somehow had a chance to exist, became able to grow /reproduce and then started to evolve as a response to environmental pressures, how would that explain the huge diversity of live within the exact same environment?

natural selection is identified as a process by which plants and animals can adapt to specific environmental pressures. But for an animal to adapt, first it should exist (to be alive). To be alive, depends on essentials functioning systems/organs (complex live model). If we consider the assumption that organs such as brain, lungs, heart, stomach did not exist at some point in time, """how would natural selection work to create such organs?"""prior existence of all of these organs is required to allow life, then the existence of this life may allow adaptation to an environment. Assumption of gradual development of essential organs over long period of time, is not logical. Absence of any of the essential organs would neither allow an animal to be alive nor to have an ability to evolve.

A rather long and windy apology that doesn't get to the root ... argument from ignorance/god of the gaps.

 

[NoorNoor]

A rather long and windy apology that doesn't get to the root ... argument from ignorance/god of the gaps.

You understand that your typical "lord of the rings" / "bugs in the bag" kind of answer reflects your total failure to respond to an argument. Obviously, Its your typical escape route to sidetrack a discussion.

Forget about the argument about the Unfalsifiability of the scientific method (its not for you) but at least, I assume TOE is your field, isn't it? Why didn't you provide a response ?

If you don't have a response, then maybe it's better for you that you don't.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

1- you assume that whatever can't be tested/falsified as none existent or not true.
(All facts/absolute existence or truth can be determined only through observations, testing, falsifying)

No, I do not. I hold that what can't be tested/falsified is indeterminate at best; and thus it is irrational to believe in such things.

2- You believe the assumption that the limits of the empirical method are equal to the limits of absolute existence. (whatever is beyond this method is not acknowledged as existent/true from a scientific point of view)

We've discussed your view of "absolutes" at length. We have reached an impasse.

3- you use this belief to prove the existence of God or any metaphysical existence as unscientific.

I most certainly do; as science deals with the natural world. Thus anything outside of the natural world is unscientific. It's pretty simple.

There is no explanation of how life originated from no life or what type of reactions of basic elements could have created replicating molecules.

Wait, wait, wait ...What does that have to do with common ancestry of apes and monkeys?

There is no specific historical route by which life could have emerged was ever coined. There is no explanation of how a single living bacterium could have emerged from simple inorganic precursors, let alone a complex life consisting of trillions of cells that function in a coordinated manner. An honest scientist would admit that all of that is a great mystery.

Not knowing all the answers doesn't mean we don't have any answers. Your argument, like all arguments of creationists, are based soley on, "Well, you don't know the answer to THIS so you don't know anything so I'm right, nanananananaaa!"

Even If we ignore all of that and assume life somehow had a chance to exist, became able to grow /reproduce and then started to evolve as a response to environmental pressures, how would that explain the huge diversity of live within the exact same environment?

Read a book. Learn about it instead of railing against it. Wallow in your ignorance if you so desire. That is your choice.

natural selection is identified as a process by which plants and animals can adapt to specific environmental pressures. But for an animal to adapt, first it should exist (to be alive). To be alive, depends on essentials functioning systems/organs (complex live model). If we consider the assumption that organs such as brain, lungs, heart, stomach did not exist at some point in time, """how would natural selection work to create such organs?"""prior existence of all of these organs is required to allow life, then the existence of this life may allow adaptation to an environment. Assumption of gradual development of essential organs over long period of time, is not logical. Absence of any of the essential organs would neither allow an animal to be alive nor to have an ability to evolve.

Look into entomology and see how diverse and different life on our planet is. Insects don't have hearts and lungs like mammals do; yet they live. Again. Read a book.

Forget about the argument about the Unfalsifiability of the scientific method (its not for you) but at least, I assume TOE is your field, isn't it? Why didn't you provide a response ?

Because your "arguments" are steeped in ignorance and logical fallacies. Probably would have better luck explaining trigonometry to a 3 year old.

 

[NoorNoor]

A real scientist would investigate and search for answer, through observation ( eg tests, evidences), regardless if there are mysteries or not. Seeking knowledge and attempting to explain WHAT it is and HOW it works, is what scientist supposed to do.

1. A scientist is to supposed to also test his explanation, to see if it is correct or incorrect,
2. or to find evidences that will either refute or validate his statements.

These are objective ways of determining the value of the hypothesis or theory.

You tend to stay on the surface. You argue the obvious. there is no disagreement regarding what you stated. You missed the point.

the validity of the empirical method itself is based on Unfalsifiabile assumption (see #726). If you believe "there is zero belief in science" how you explain your belief in the Unfalsifiabile validity of the empirical method?

To me, it doesn't mean total collapse of the empirical method validity but rather it sheds light on its limitation. We have to understand the Existence of areas/limits beyond which the method doesn't apply.

To prove any theory, you need a reference/precursor theory that was already proven. In absence of that reference, nothing would have a meaning. The continuation of the hierarchy of refrences dictates a need for an absolute first theory/ reference that doesn't need a proof, yet, it provokes/proves every thing.

Do you know why there are no great scientists among Muslims today?

I understand your position is against theism, Logically, you should have said, "there are no great scientists among theists today" which is not true, but no, I am a Muslim who is saying something that you don't like, so you engage on an ignorant attack on Muslims. Sorry to use the word "ignorant" but it's true in the sense that you are making an irrelevant baseless claim.

Refer to this link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

In fact, after the classical era, Muslim scientists (influenced by their faith) at the middle ages (Islamic golden age) were the pioneers to coin the basis of modern science /employ the scientific method. Refer to #515

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

If the context is your claim that their believes impeded their state of inquiring minds, then when did these scientists actually lived is irrelevant. Their faith actually triggered their inquiring minds not the opposite. Their faith triggered the transformation that created the islamic golden age.

You also made a claim about "fable in the Qur'an". I am sure you also don't have knowledge or understanding of Quran. I'll leave it at that. I wouldn't discuss it with you. Your position is very far from such discussion.

 

[Sapiens]

You understand that your typical "lord of the rings" / "bugs in the bag" kind of answer reflects your total failure to respond to an argument. Obviously, Its your typical escape route to sidetrack a discussion.

Forget about the argument about the Unfalsifiability of the scientific method (its not for you) but at least, I assume TOE is your field, isn't it? Why didn't you provide a response ?

If you don't have a response, then maybe it's better for you that you don't.

Your right, that is my typical response to the sort of typical tripe that creationists serve up. I've heard it, literally, a thousand times before and it deserves nothing more, after all how much bother should I go through to respond to so obvious and ridiculous a logical fallacy? There is no discussion here to sidetrack.

 

[NoorNoor]

Your right, that is my typical response to the sort of typical tripe that creationists serve up. I've heard it, literally, a thousand times before and it deserves nothing more, after all how much bother should I go through to respond to so obvious and ridiculous a logical fallacy? There is no discussion here to sidetrack.

I am sure you heard it thousand times before, yet you continue to spend lots of time on these arguments (3727 messages). I don't think you would quit any time soon. Would you? But whenever you don't have an answer, you are ready with some none sense backup response ( logical fallacy/ god of the gaps).

I asked a question related to your field and I repeat
"how life originated from no life or what type of reactions of basic elements could have created replicating molecules. how a single living bacterium could have emerged from simple inorganic precursors let alone a complex life consisting of trillions of cells that function in a coordinated manner"

I know you don't have an answer. You know what a respectful scientist would say if he doesn't have an answer? I'll give you a hint. ""I don't know" or he simply wouldn't respond. He wouldn't rely on some none sense ridiculous responses.

 

[gnostic]

I understand your position is against theism, Logically, you should have said, "there are no great scientists among theists today" which is not true, but no, I am a Muslim who is saying something that you don't like, so you engage on an ignorant attack on Muslims.

It is not an attack, but the truth, NoorNoor.

The last great scientists and mathematicians among the Muslims died out five-six centuries ago, when the last discoveries were made.

I admired the Muslim mathematicians and scientists back in the days of Islam's golden age, but those days of discoveries have long passed.

Today, we have Muslims working in science, but they are not the ones making new discoveries. But I am not ridiculing Muslims for lack of scientific discoveries.

No, my problem with some Muslims (I must stressed "some" Muslims) of today, is that they are trying to take credits away from non-Muslim scientists of 20th and 21st century, by quoting obscure passages from the Qur'an, like televangelist Zakir Naik and some of the Muslim members here repeating the same dishonest BS as Naik.

Examples quoting Qur'an and saying it allude to some modern science findings, and claiming that the science were known when the Qur'an was written.

Not all Muslims are using this dishonest tactics.

The Qur'an is not a science textbook, and yet (again, "some") Muslims insisted that the science are in the book, and god about twisting the meaning of quoted passages, to match that of modern science. What they are doing, doesn't involve science at all.

That's what I am referring to, when I don't think much of Muslims of today. I don't think Muslims have inquiring minds, to search for answers through science like their ancestors did, prior to the 15th century.

 

[NoorNoor]

I most certainly do; as science deals with the natural world. Thus anything outside of the natural world is unscientific. It's pretty simple

Any creature would consider its own realm as the limit of existence. An ant living in box may think anything outside the box is not existent. It's pretty simple concept but simple doesn't mean true or logical.

Wait, wait, wait ...What does that have to do with common ancestry of apes and monkeys?

Isn't that obvious? If the claimed common ancestry itself can't exist, then the entire TOE collapses. Prove the common ancestry before making a theory based on something that can't exist.

Not knowing all the answers doesn't mean we don't have any answers. Your argument, like all arguments of creationists, are based soley on, "Well, you don't know the answer to THIS so you don't know anything so I'm right, nanananananaaa!"

Thats an Apology not an answer.

Read a book. Learn about it instead of railing against it. Wallow in your ig

No, I am not reading a book. I am asking you. you believe the TOE, I assume you have an answer.

Look into entomology and see how diverse and different life on our planet is. Insects don't have hearts and lungs like mammals do; yet they live. Again. Read a book.

bacterium and plants are alive without hearts or lungs.Insects have alternative systems of breathing and circulatory system. This is not the point. The point is, any living organism depends on essential systems to be alive. Natural selections doesn't explain the transition /intermediate stages between the none existence and the existence of the essential systems required to support the live of an organism.

 

[Zosimus]

It is not an attack, but the truth, NoorNoor.

The last great scientists and mathematicians among the Muslims died out five-six centuries ago, when the last discoveries were made.

I admired the Muslim mathematicians and scientists back in the days of Islam's golden age, but those days of discoveries have long passed.

Today, we have Muslims working in science, but they are not the ones making new discoveries. But I am not ridiculing Muslims for lack of scientific discoveries.

No, my problem with some Muslims (I must stressed "some" Muslims) of today, is that they are trying to take credits away from non-Muslim scientists of 20th and 21st century, by quoting obscure passages from the Qur'an, like televangelist Zakir Naik and some of the Muslim members here repeating the same dishonest BS as Naik.

Examples quoting Qur'an and saying it allude to some modern science findings, and claiming that the science were known when the Qur'an was written.

Not all Muslims are using this dishonest tactics.

The Qur'an is not a science textbook, and yet (again, "some") Muslims insisted that the science are in the book, and god about twisting the meaning of quoted passages, to match that of modern science. What they are doing, doesn't involve science at all.

That's what I am referring to, when I don't think much of Muslims of today. I don't think Muslims have inquiring minds, to search for answers through science like their ancestors did, prior to the 15th century.

Ahmed Hassan Zewail
Muslim
Won Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1999

pwned

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I understand your position is against theism, Logically, you should have said, "there are no great scientists among theists today" which is not true, but no, I am a Muslim who is saying something that you don't like, so you engage on an ignorant attack on Muslims. Sorry to use the word "ignorant" but it's true in the sense that you are making an irrelevant baseless claim.

No. It was a very simple question: Name notable Muslim scientists that are alive today.

Any creature would consider its own realm as the limit of existence. An ant living in box may think anything outside the box is not existent. It's pretty simple concept but simple doesn't mean true or logical.

Now; at what point did I state that "things outside of science don't exist?" See, my "Belief" that there is nothing outside the material is, admittedly, a "belief". But you have changed the debate and shifted the goalpost (again). You stated "nothing outside of the material is scientific". And its not. Because science doesn't delve in such matters.

What is outside the ant's box is natural and physical. What you propose as "absolute truth" is somethign outside the natural and the physical. Such matters fall outside the realm of science; and are thus "unscientific".

That's a pretty simple concept, NoorNoor.

Thats an Apology not an answer.

No. It is neither. It is neither an apology; there is nothing to apologize for; and it is not an answer; because we don't have the answers yet. Imagine someone 8,000 years ago proclaiming that there just "might" be another explanation for erupting volcanoes other than Loki. You ask "well, what explanation can that be?" He answers, "I don't know". Now imagine YOU saying the same thing to that person: "Well, if you don't know what causes the volcanic eruption, then you are wrong; Loki causes that volcano to erupt!" And I am quite certain that this conversation took place at some point in mankind's history.

Not knowing an answer is not a basis to invoke the supernatural. Why do I bother reminding of you of this?

No, I am not reading a book. I am asking you. you believe the TOE, I assume you have an answer.

I am not responsible for your education. And your discussion with US is not done with the intent to learn; it is done with the intent to prove a point. When you are ready to learn, you will read a book; then eventually you will start asking intelligent questions.

bacterium and plants are alive without hearts or lungs.Insects have alternative systems of breathing and circulatory system. This is not the point.

No, no, no, no, no.

You again shift the goalpost.

You made statements about hearts and lungs and circulatory systems; and you proceed on the assumption that in order for our earliest ancestors to have survived, we would have had to have been much as we are today; with heart, lungs, all this complexity.

Our earliest ancestors did not have hearts and lungs as we have them today. They developed over time. The evidence that biological organisms -- including our earliest ancestors -- do not require our organs or tissues as they are today is clearly evident in other species, such as insects, who do not have them ... yet survive. Thus we, at one time, had:

alternative systems of breathing and circulatory system.

 

[Sapiens]

I am sure you heard it thousand times before, yet you continue to spend lots of time on these arguments (3727 messages). I don't think you would quit any time soon. Would you? But whenever you don't have an answer, you are ready with some none sense backup response ( logical fallacy/ god of the gaps).

I asked a question related to your field and I repeat
"how life originated from no life or what type of reactions of basic elements could have created replicating molecules. how a single living bacterium could have emerged from simple inorganic precursors let alone a complex life consisting of trillions of cells that function in a coordinated manner"

I know you don't have an answer. You know what a respectful scientist would say if he doesn't have an answer? I'll give you a hint. ""I don't know" or he simply wouldn't respond. He wouldn't rely on some none sense ridiculous responses.

That is just another strawman. I never claimed knowledge of abiogenesis, that is (in fact) not my field,it has nothing what-so-ever to do wit the TOE.

I am happy to say, "I do not know," what I decry is your advancement of fallacy: "well ... if you don't know then clearly god did it."

 

[NoorNoor]

That is just another strawman. I never claimed knowledge of abiogenesis, that is (in fact) not my field,it has nothing what-so-ever to do wit the TOE.

I am happy to say, "I do not know," what I decry is your advancement of fallacy: "well ... if you don't know then clearly god did it."

Life should exist first before it could evolve. The TOE simply shifts the exact same question back in time. Every thing came from a common ancestor but we don't have any idea what type of reactions of basic elements could have created the claimed common ancestor. We have no idea how life replicating molecules could have emerged.

You already stated that you don't know. That is actually a progress. Did you notice that I said ""related"" to your field? It's respectful to admit that you don't know rather than reliance on typical none sense responses

 

[Sapiens]

Life should exist first before it could evolve.

Agreed in theory, with some concern over the definition of "life." That is why it is nonsensical to refer to abiogenesis as "evolution." I fear you are wrongly focused on "life" as an on-off switch rather than a gradual process that would only be recognized retrospectively at some distance in time.

The TOE simply shifts the exact same question back in time. Every thing came from a common ancestor but we don't have any idea what type of reactions of basic elements could have created the claimed common ancestor. We have no idea how life replicating molecules could have emerged.

Actually there are rather good ideas concerning the origins of self-replicating molecules, good enough to be convincing to notoriously skeptical scientists. I withhold detailed comment and differ to those who demonstrably know way more about the subject than I do.

You already stated that you don't know. That is actually a progress. Did you notice that I said ""related"" to your field? It's respectful to admit that you don't know rather than reliance on typical none sense responses

Do not confuse my willingness to admit a lack of knowledge where it is appropriate to do so with any respect for your views what-so-ever. The concordance is strictly stochastic and should not, in anyway, be confused with approval of anything you have to say.