it’s hard for me to discuss withsomeone who clearly doesn’t get either the process of science or
the status or evolution science . Don’t worry - you are like most atheists on that , deluded by the unsubstantiated assumptions of such as Dawkins.
As a scientist I don’t favour anything - you dont get science, or the SCIENTIFIC meaning of hypothesis ‘ or “theory” . I go as far as evidence let’s me.
As for personal beliefs we all have them : you seem to believe as unsubstantiated belief that life is essentially explicable by known or assumed evolutionary process.
If only you would look at the evidence just once ONCE would see the simplest known cell is a massively complex self repairing and self developing chemical factory. How that came to be is 99.9% of the problem of life.
And it is COMPLETELY unknown.
I dont need to falsify anything . There is NOTHING to falsify.
But will say this : there is far more forensic evidence for created life, that falsifies Darwin’s thesis by his own test than there is for life origin in the normally assumed chemical abiogenesis for which there is no evidence , process or structure. However weak you think that evidence is, at least there is some!
None of the start points for a Valid hypothesis on Abiogenesis exist, so it is pure speculation and therefore belief.
Where life came from is an opinion.
Any
actual scientist recognizes that
a theory is going to be supported by many
strands of evidence. Plate tectonics for
example, which like evolution can be defined many
different ways, is formed from, reliant on many
other theories, including the biggie- how exactly do the
plates move.
Going on and on about a characteristic of all
theoies tahat you claim as weakness in ToE
deeply undercuts your internet rando claim of
being a scientist. As does your your constant dodging of questions about the fact that you nor
anyone has one datum point to falsify ToE.
"Nothing to disprove" is the second most most lame excuse ever. After "embedded age".
Actual scientist don't go for making things up, such
as you keep doing about me. And, evidently, about yourself as a " scientist".
Honest and knowledgeable people have no need
of fiction to support their arguments.
Actual scientists know that abiogenesis is no more a.
part of ToE than origin of the gas laws is essential to
the study of auto mechanics.
The thread concerns the use of the word " just" to describe theories people ( usually creationists) dont like.a
You've not said one word on topic, nor offered one word
of factual material with any reference to a source.
Omly multiple violations of forum rules including your making this into " evolution v creationism".
A modicum of respect for the forum, please.