rjh4 is back Wrote:Regarding part 2 from above, if I were to follow your reasoning, I could propose the hypothesis:
"Dirt particles colliding with other dirt particles produces life from non-life."
and that is enough to support the claim:
"There is a natural mechanism by which life can come from non-life."
I have to say, this response tempts me to lower my estimation of you. You can't possibly be so dim as to think that's a scientific hypothesis and still spell as well as you do. That means you're disingenuously presenting a strawman version of my position, which I don't think is too hard for someone with a high school education to grasp correctly.
The extant hypotheses on abiogenesis are thoroughly grounded in what is known of organic chemistry, biochemistry and conditions present during the era in which the earliest signs of life are detected. WTF is your 'dirt particles collide' based on besides a combined strawman and appeal to ridicule?
rjh4 is back Wrote:That does not follow. Just because someone proposes a hypothesis regarding a particular mechanism does not mean that it is actually such a mechanism.
When you claim there is no natural mechanism, it's a claim of knowledge or certainty that such a mechanism does not exist. All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism, and then it becomes clear that you have no way to know that there is no such mechanism, or your certainty is unjustified, and you're speaking ex rectum.
If I say there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning; you don't have to prove that you actually drove to Columbia, SC this morning to refute me; all you have to do is show that there IS a way you could have done it, because my claim was that there isn't such a way.
If you're being forthright, I don't see why this concept would be so hard for you.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.