Abiogenesis solved?

[Doubting Thomas]

Whenever abiogenesis is solved and a proven fact, the Christers will look at it and say, "See? This just explains how God created life on earth! Science again catches up to the bible!"

[daandaan]

You have to understand the mentality that you are up against, Max. Eventually you will see one of them say:

TMV forms in solution - therefore god.

Their act never changes.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

the thoughts form in delusion ...therefore god.........

[VAN BELLE Jean Marc]

Of all of the issues that an Atheist (well me to be honest) faces the issue of abiogenesis was always the most difficult.

It can be strange to hear this from someone with the strongest believe i ever met (must be strange to hear when you have not met me yet), but i (sorry, do not love to use Majuscule in <I> though i presume it originates from the Arabic/Hebrew Alepha towards old English), but abiogenesisi can be explained as well in an Atheist (Darwinistic, evolutionary) way, as well in a Christian/Jewish/Moslim/... (creational) way.

The question is why some 'thing' (= dead?) could be able to regenerate molecules (RNA versus DNA)?

But if you mixed 2 times H + 1 time 0 you get H - O - H or just water, so why would their be no 'definition' in some material that has a definition of "how long to grow" (adding or 'building' cells) and when to stop (that's the problem with cancer).

As maths are to me just a childish explanation of 'how we explore nature and think it works by <creating> dogma's or principles and deductions', I do not have a problem with RNA or viruses that now seems to be a lot more important than DNA and RNA (that takes generation to changes, where all our flues train us to change in a very very high speed level), I think you do not have to connect the creation or multiplying of chrystals to your predispositional way of observing and reading/thinking about this in terms of 'atheisme' or 'believing their could be some central force with more intelligence than we have'.

Even when it would double "itself", it takes other materia to do that, and it will not be in collision with the closed physic law of maintenance of energy (and matter, as matter probably seems to be energy here in earth).

I can follow you with my atheistic scientifical 'side of view'.

For me believe is however, that i have to get more 'humble' to know that there is a lot i do not know yet or will never know, so i can remain 'growing' as these chrystals are likely to do...

But this last opinion does help me in examination or interpretation, but has nothing to do with the atheistic way of scientific studie or the chrystals themselves... If you are atheistic, i will try to look from the believers side. If you look from the believers side, i will try to look at it from the atheistic (unbelieving?) side.

PS: i have never met a person who does not believe (eg. that his parents love or loved him/her when making him/her). All words we say, originate from the believe of what they might mean when we were taught them.

[FatAndFaithless]

Are you for real with this necro shit.