dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
Well, we know that complex things can come from simple ones given the Miller-Urey experiment. Bonds between elements form amino acids. There's a fact. Abiogensis can in fact be proven or disproven. It lays out a few possible transitions from organic matter to life. These are testable. God isn't. Neither is ID. That nullifies their relevance entirely to Science.
I wholeheartedly agree that ID is just religious nonsense in an attempt to validate theism.
|
That's not what I said at all, and you're twisting my words, as well as being condescending in the process. I've been trying to say that we can disagree and have a civil discussion without assuming that the other is 'stupid' or calling somebody's views 'nonsense', and apparently that is impossible with you. I apprecieate the people who have tried to have a meaningful discussion, you're not one of them.
|
I meant I agreed with the author of that source I provided. ID has absolutely no scientific basis so why would you use it in parallel with a true scientific theory? I apologize if it seems condescending, I do it without noticing. That source was absolutely condescending though.
As to meaningful discussion, you've sought to tear down every bit of abiogenesis while perpetuating ID with absolutely no evidence or verification. Just your own suppositions. That isn't meaningful at all...
|
My mistake, I thought you were referring directly to what I said. In that case, disregard that part. Carry on.
I'm merely pointing to the big problem that I see with abiogenesis, which is not being able to bridge the gap between non-life and life. So many people act like it's a proven fact, when it's simply not.
