Alara317 said:
timmah said:
Alara317 said:
timmah said:
Alara317 said:
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.
|
When did I say this?
|
it was implied.
and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory! I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.
|
I'm only arguing against you calling it a fact. It's a theory. You're free to draw your own conclusions on which theory you like best.
|
by your logic, there is no such thing as a fact. If we can never truly know anything for absolute certainty, then I'll still go with the theory that has the most supporting evidence, in which case you're still being silly by disregarding scientific 'fact'.
|
Let me add to it then. It's a theory to explain the fact that life is here, and was not always here. That is the fact, the 'how' and 'why' are not proven facts. This particular theory has multiple unprovable hypothesis to explain how life 'might' have started from non-life. I don't see how that leads to it being a fact.
