This is why I don't like debating religion

[KungKras]

timmah said:

KungKras 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??

If you're pointing to the murkiness of our knowledge about how life emerged and using that to give credibility to ID, isn't that just the good old god of the gaps argument? It was used about lightning, human reproduction, mental disease, you name it. How much are you willing to bet that such an argument will be on the wrong side of history yet again?

You missed my point. Having a gap between non-life and life does not in itself prove God exists, that wasn't my intention (as I've said before, you cannot prove God exists, nor can you disprove He exists). I was attempting to make the point that Science does not have a concrete and provable answer as to the origin of life either. People seem to think that on the origin of life, Science has some concrete, magic bullet, it simply doesn't.

Science doesn't yet have all the pieces of the puzzle if that's what you mean. But what we do have are some pretty good pointers towards where the answer might lie. Religion doesn't have those pointers in the same way because the bible (or any other holy book) doesn't prove or point to anything in the real world other than "this is what christians belive" (and some historical perspectives about the roman and east roman empires).