RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 2:52 pm
(October 3, 2013 at 2:33 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I just call it atheistic because God is not allowed to invoked.It's not that God is not allowed, it's that God is not a useful experimental concept. I know many very good, smart theistic scientists (Christians. Muslims, Buddhists), and God is important to them, but it just isn't something that is useful when you're trying to discover how something in living cells works.
Quote: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.Why do you keep asking members when so many of us have pointed out to you that we don't know? Can you move on?
Quote:I just was showing that the answers have yet to be discovered and thus there is no solid proof of abiogenesis.No concrete evidence, no- but much that is rich for further study, if you look at the very good papers I have linked here. You seem to be suggesting that scientists should simply throw their hands up and not try to explain it. Imagine how much worse off we would all be if that was the response of scientists faced with a difficult question. So let's get on with it, then. Is there another point of yours in your VERY long OP that you would like me, as an evolutionary biologist, to address?
Quote:I may start a topic which will try to get an approximation of the odds of abiogenesis.Pointless. Since we don't know how many Goldilocks planets are in the universe, and all the possible forms life could take, that cannot be done. So why waste your time on a question no one can answer? There is clearly much you do not know about the mechanisms of genetics, let alone evolutionary biology, so why not learn it instead of throwing out red herrings? It belittles your argument. Let's see some good, answerable, substantial questions.
