By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Please tell me which of the hypothesis in the above article is the 'best possible answer' based on observation and experimentation. If you can, you're smarter than 99% of the scientific community. You can certainly tell me your personal opinion, but none of these is a concrete, provable answer to bridge that gap from non-life to life. Could somebody just come out and acknowledge that Science does not have a solid answer to this question??

Abiogenesis is the overlaying theory. It is the consensus of the scientific community. Within abiogenesis there are competing components, but abiogenesis itself is what you really should have asked for. 

This article sums up my feelings about intelligent design:

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node47.html

My point was that Abiogenesis may be an accepted theory, but there is not one single, provable fact within that theory. And that article is the biggest load derogatory crap I've seen in a while, and does not accurately portray the arguments of ID proponents.

EDIT: I'd certainly go so far as to say that God cannot be proven by Science, nor can Intelligent Design be 'proven'. On the other hand, the theories above can't be proven either, so the assertion that people who believe in ID are stupid is not a fair conclusion. Articles like the one above just go to show the level of condescending hate that some people have towards conflicting viewpoints. I simply don't share that type of hatred or condescention towards your views.

Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.