Originally Posted by Glock36shooter
Can you explain why you're 50/50 though? Seems there is so much more evidence to support one over the other. I don't understand why you give one possibility with no supporting evidence as much credence as one that does.
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. 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?
Each side has their fans, both even have their fanatics, I just landed in the middle.
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???