- Oct 29, 2017
- 55,281
- 8,140
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Then hydrogen and oxygen coming together to make water must be a complete mystery to you.
Not at all; but that's irrelevant.
Upvote
0
Then hydrogen and oxygen coming together to make water must be a complete mystery to you.
Yes, it does appear so, but it hardly matters. It is nit-picking when set against the broader, convincing evidence for biological evolution.
Not true, actually.Yes, it does appear so, but it hardly matters. It is nit-picking when set against the broader, convincing evidence for biological evolution.
And if that does ever happen, then creationists will shout "viola! creationism!".In order for evolution to occur; there must first be life. To this day no one has observed a new life form magically popping out of a wet rock.
I view this as an important detail; if we want to view this from a scientific perspective.
Spontaneous generation is basically a couple of fancy words for "poof, and then magic happened", which may be fine for fairy tales and bronze age mythology, but does not describe the work scientists have been doing on abiogenesis the last 40 years or so.
Hardly since abiogenesis is just chemistry and physics.
Big IF. For how many decades have scientists been testing this failed hypothesis.And if that does ever happen, then creationists will shout "viola! creationism!".
No one has ever claimed that it has.Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
Abiogenesis has not been observed. If someone told you that it has; he's propagating a myth.
No one has ever claimed that it has.
What has been claimed is that many, if not most, of the steps in abiogenesis, formation of complex organic compounds necessary for life from simpler organic chemicals, formation of cell-like encapsulating wall structures, self-replication, self-organization, etc. have already been replicated in the laboratory, and some have been observed in nature.
How long did it take to get humans to the moon? How long did it take to cure cancer? How long did it take to find that big wooden barge on that mountain the Bible identifies as it's resting place?Big IF. For how many decades have scientists been testing this failed hypothesis.
Just because something takes a long time for science to figure out (it has only been a few decades after all) doesn't mean it's a "failed hypothesis".
Abiogenesis hasn't been demonstrated.
Chemical reactions have been demonstrated; but let's not conflate the two.
It's fallacious to say that because water and rocks exist; that life magically popped out of wet rocks. It's known as a bare assertion fallacy.
How are you defining "life"?
The strong evidence for biological evolution would remain if we discovered either that God made the first life forms or if their emergence was pure chemistry.In order for evolution to occur; there must first be life. To this day no one has observed a new life form magically popping out of a wet rock.
I view this as an important detail; if we want to view this from a scientific perspective.
There will be no agreement here, surprise, surprise! And the repetitiveness has become dull.
Perhaps the discussion could now move on to why the Arkansas education authority tried to put creationism into the school curriculum. There is nothing of the scientific about it; I think it properly belongs to religious instruction.
It is the proper business of the churches to instruct their congregations, not the work of statutory secular organisations. Am I wrong to suggest that the real agenda here is to slip religious instruction where it is not allowed under the American Constitution?
The strong evidence for biological evolution would remain if we discovered either that God made the first life forms or if their emergence was pure chemistry.
Thats completely false. Direct observation is not required for strong evidence. This is a general principle, not limited to the study of biological history..The evidence for macroevolution, in absence of observation, is reduced to speculation.
Thats completely false. Direct observation is not required for strong evidence. This is a general principle, not limited to the study of biological history..