The balance of probability should not be determined by political bias, which unfortunately where this subject seems to come down in most cases. Most all avenues are still open, least in my mind, in pursuit of this ultimate truth of where and how we came to be.That settles it. The balance of probability favors a sky daddy and his winged angels.
Atheism
- Thread starter nursebee
- Start date
I don't say it's a theory. It is a theory.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/chemical-cr.htm
And it's a theory with lots of holes in it. Doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing, but we're a long, long ways from factual evidence. However, one could take it on faith alone.
The Science of Chemical Evolution is scientific theory. It is as your link states, the science for abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is the process by which life would arise from non living organisms, supported by that theory. It's a stretch to say Abiogenesis is a scientific theory in its own right.
However, you're being way over dramatic to say it has lots of holes and long, long ways from factual evidence. In reality, common sense and science and factual evidence (Chemical Evolution) demonstrates nothing else but non-life to life. In faith there can be anything you want, in your mind.
Last edited:
"In reality, common sense and science and factual evidence (Chemical Evolution) demonstrates nothing else but non-life to life".
30 years ago I'd have agreed with you. My personal life experiences since have left me open to the possibility of other things. Might be hocus pocus, but it's worth the pursuit, for me. I'm not trying to sell anyone on anything.
No problem Captain I respect that. But it isn't the science we were speaking of. I just think it wrong to mix the two.
Look in this line of bullshit... Stu wrote...
"In reality, common sense and science and factual evidence (Chemical Evolution) demonstrates nothing else but non-life to life".
In reality some scientists including NASA scientists state the evidence may point to something else. I have provided Stu with papers articles and scientists stating that there was not enough time for life to have evolved into non life. And that the drive for life seems programmed into the building blocks of life. Yet he completely ignores that possiblity...
I have also presented stu info from some of the very top scientists in the field we don't have a complete plausible pathway from non life to life... and we have seen comments that say we may never have one... scientists are working on parts of that pathway.
So real science conflicts with stu statement about common sense, science and evidence.
"In reality, common sense and science and factual evidence (Chemical Evolution) demonstrates nothing else but non-life to life".
In reality some scientists including NASA scientists state the evidence may point to something else. I have provided Stu with papers articles and scientists stating that there was not enough time for life to have evolved into non life. And that the drive for life seems programmed into the building blocks of life. Yet he completely ignores that possiblity...
I have also presented stu info from some of the very top scientists in the field we don't have a complete plausible pathway from non life to life... and we have seen comments that say we may never have one... scientists are working on parts of that pathway.
So real science conflicts with stu statement about common sense, science and evidence.
With the right environment, the chemicals which are the building blocks of life, can produce life. That's why they are called the building blocks of life. What do you expect them to do?
Irrespective of any of pathway, bottom line is a toss up between natural chemical evolution, which all life is made from, or unexplained jiggery pokery by an imaginary wizard.
jeesh
except... as I showed you on the other thread right now... scientists tell you it is implausible that non life evolved into life by random chance.
is the possibility of a designer so hard to accept? sheesh
but sure... as long as you understand it could have been by design I accept that it is possible science could find that life got here by random chance.
I have no issue with that at all. its you who has the issue with a creator.
is the possibility of a designer so hard to accept? sheesh
but sure... as long as you understand it could have been by design I accept that it is possible science could find that life got here by random chance.
I have no issue with that at all. its you who has the issue with a creator.
With the right environment, the chemicals which are the building blocks of life, can produce life. That's why they are called the building blocks of life. What do you expect them to do?
Irrespective of any of pathway, bottom line is a toss up between natural chemical evolution, which all life is made from, or unexplained jiggery pokery by an imaginary wizard.
jeesh
arguing inevitable outcome of natural forces does not change the question. What caused the natural forces to shape life? random chance or design is the question that goes back to the big bang. you can't shake the fact life is so highly improbable that it does not appear to be plausible without design or a multiverse according to many stop scientists... most who are agnostic.