The problem is that you wish to build a house upon nothing.
No, the problem is that in one sentence you claim to not be a science denier and not make absurd claims against solid, well-evidenced and well-established scientific theories, while in the very next sentence you rant about evolution theory.
As I keep pointing out but to no avail, your abiogenesis idea is pure conjecture.
And as plenty of people have pointed out to you: the origins of life aren't withing the scope of evolution theory, which is a model that provides an explanation for how EXISTING life diversifies through reproduction with variation and the struggle for survival through competition for limited resources.
Get it into that brain of yours: abiogenesis and evolution are
two different subjects, two different areas of study.
It has never been observed in nature and can't be forced to happen in a lab.
Yet.
Each floor in your foundationless building depends hypothetically on millions of astronomically statistically unlikely accidents. Not just one-but each one.
Literally EVERYTHING is the result of such "astronomical statistics".
Even your own existence. Consider your own bloodline, going back all those generations. YOU are the result of that enormous chain of events. Imagine the statistical improbability of ALL OF YOUR ANCESTORS meeting eachother and mating. Even withing a SINGLE event of conception, imagine the MILLIONS of sperm cells that lost the race - each on of wich would have produced a DIFFERENT human, which would have resulted in you NOT existing.
Your very own existance isn't actually the result of "millions" of such unlikely events. It is actualy the result of BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS of such events.
And you know what? Each and every potentially
possible outcome would have the exact same improbability.
Just like every pokerhand has the exact same improbability. Be it a 8-high hand or a royal flush.
This is the problem with people who don't understand probabilities. Only a chance of 0 means that something is "impossible" - and that's assuming you actually have all the required information to determine that the probability is 0, which simply is not the case when it concerns the origins of life.
In this universe, literally EVERYTHING THAT EXIST had a low probability of existing, when you actually run the numbers. But it's all meaningless.
Because calculating probabilities
after the events have already occured, is a pointless undertaking.
You see, the difference between us is that I don't give credence to fantastic claims of that nature when a far more likely, in fact-a compelling alternative is available.
There is no alternative to evolution theory when it comes to explaining the diversity of living things and the pattern life falls into. Compelling or otherwise.
Your religious convictions have no relevance in evidence-based science.
I don't pronounce the almost impossibly unlikely as a certainty simply because I can't stomach what the facts clearly indicate.
Evolution is not only possible, it is
inevitable.
Common ancestry of life is a genetic
fact.
That life reproduces with variation is a
fact.
That natural selection is at work in the struggle for survival and reproduction is a
fact.
There's a reason why it's called the "most solid theory in all of science".
There's a reason why people like Francis Collins say that its truth cannot be rationally denied by any educated person.
To suggest otherwise is no more or less then a statement of extreme ignorance (or just a plain lie).
True, you predict and it might turn out that a prediction might appear as a confirmation of an idea. However you glibly reject all other viable possibilities and conclude common ancestry.
There are no viable other possibilities.
Common ancestry is a genetic fact. Ignoring it will not make it go away. It won't change the facts. It won't change our collective genomes. It won't make all life
not fall into a branching tree. A nested hierarchy. A demonstrable, verifiable family tree.
The exact same knowledge that is being used to determine if your parents are your actual biological parents.
In short, you aren't open to any suggestion that doesn't fit your atheistic inflexible view. That isn't what science is about.
Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism and everything with the evidence, as the many, many, many
christian evolutionary biologists demonstrate everyday.
Go ask Ken Miller and Francis Collins about their work in biology as well as their religious views. Go ahead. I dare you.
Go ask them, then come back here and see if you can still keep a straight face, claiming the opposite.
Science isn't about tossing out cogent reasoning as if totally irrelevant to truth.
Science is about developing explanatory models that make testable predictions.
Which is exactly what evolution is about. It is also exactly what religious nonsense like ID is not.
In fact, if indeed an idea demands that cogent reasoning be discarded in order to believe something-then that automatically places it in the category of quackery regardless of how vehemently you might say to the contrary.
Now you can respond with "Ï can't see!""
The evolution model doesn't require the denial of verifiable facts. No matter how many times you wish to repeat it.
