View Single Post
Old 02-09-2013, 13:08   #486
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
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.



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.




But without logical justification. Abiogenesis doesn't answer all questions. But creationism answers none. There is no real supporting evidence for creationism.



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.
Just for a second, pretend you are conversing with a true middle of the road undecided agnostic on the creation vs. natural phenomena issue.

With atheists on one side of me, and theists on the other, either side trying to claim absolute knowledge and suppress the other is agenda driven.

It's possible it was made, it's possible it just happened under the right conditions. No reason not to admit that and just move on to spending more time learning about the present, that we are more sure about. Sure, we should keep looking, and when/if all the pieces fit and it's really proven, go with it then.

Besides, you've sorta already told me your hobby with other religious beliefs other than your own.
Cavalry Doc is offline