Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

There is no such field as "atheistic origin science." The scientific method is not atheistic. It's a tool. Tools don't have beliefs.

I study the evolutionary molecular genetics of microbes, and I'll tell you an absolute fact: we do not know what the first living creature looked like. We can speculate that its genome was RNA-based, but we can't know that for sure because we don't have access to the first living creature. Scientists like to speculate about what it looked like, and to try to come up with testable hypotheses. It is pretty clear that DNA evolved from RNA, which would tend to indicate that the first organisms were RNA based. We are just learning to read molecular "fossils" in genomes, and the field is expanding. Will we know someday? Maybe, maybe not. If you want to insert your god into that gap, OK. Not very useful in the lab, but it's your life.

That is the true answer to your question.


*One of the authors in the link, Patrick Forterre (of the Pasteur Institute), is particularly well-regarded in this field. His papers are really fun, informative, and well-written.

I just call it atheistic because God is not allowed to invoked.

Thank you for the information. I already knew that the first thing was not observed and remains speculation at this point. I also want to thank you for your honest comment that it may never be known.

I just was showing that the answers have yet to be discovered and thus there is no solid proof of abiogenesis.

I may start a topic which will try to get an approximation of the odds of abiogenesis.