View Single Post
Old 02-09-2013, 10:35   #482
Senior Member
Glock36shooter's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Actually, there is a lot of conjecture and biased examination of what is observable to be skeptical of both. Lets suppose that all the right pieces just happened to fall into place millions of years ago, when the planet was devoid of life. That's quite a statistical feat.
Earth is a statistical feat in the same sense. How many planets have we observed that have the needed environment to support life? The statistics say Earth is a rare gem. The idea is that a planet that is able to support life will grow life. Seems like a very natural concept to me.

But then why today, when you can find building blocks of life all over the planet, with animals shedding cells and leaving DNA everywhere, and we are knee deep in building blocks for life, are we not witnessing abiogenesis in nature now?
I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps Earth's environment has changed to where that is no longer possible. Perhaps there is already life in any environment in which that reaction could take place and that life interferes with the formation of new life. In other words there may be sinple single celled organisms consuming materials that might otherwise be needed for the process. And because I don't know for sure doesn't mean smarter people than I haven't already found the answer to your question. But that still doesn't give it equal credence to Creationism. There is still so much more evidence supporting abiogenesis.

We know all life evolved from the simplest organisms. You agree with that right? I've seen you say you think Evolution is the correct description of how life progressed on this planet. Well... we also know that under the right conditions (the conditions of a pre-life Earth) RNA could form via the proper chemical reaction.

I agree there are a few pieces of the puzzle missing to connect the two. No one is saying it's a done deal yet.

But what dots has creationism connected? Any?

You're still not justifying how you can give equal credence to two concepts that have such grossly differing levels of evidence to support them.

Each side has their fans, both even have their fanatics, I just landed in the middle.
But without logical justification. Abiogenesis doesn't answer all questions. But creationism answers none. There is no real supporting evidence for creationism.

The real interesting thing to think about, is that since there are strong feelings on both sides, and no real proof, why would either side trying to suppress the other and exclude the other possibility from even being taught, unless there was an agenda at work???
That statement is dishonest. There is real proof for abiogenesis and there is none for creationsism. One is actual science and the other is an attempt to twist science to support religion.
Glock36shooter is offline