On the Unsurety of Abiogenesis
(An aside regarding my previous post: I have returned and edited it for clarity. It was never my intent to say that I don't like babies because they are dumb. This is not true; I have no dislike of babies themselves. But because babies are dumb, it takes a lot of work to communicate with them to help them become smarter, and I'd rather avoid the work. But if someone has babies, they should, of course, make every effort, as I would too.)
(I considered titling this "On the Absurdity of Abiogenesis", but that is just my personal opinion.)
Abiogenesis, for those who forget my defining it in the past, is also called "chemical evolution". It is the hypothetical origin of life from non-life by natural/chemical means.
This is often erroneously confused with evolution -- the study of the changes and adaptations in life -- and this confusion in definition is one of the major reasons why evolution and monotheistic religion seem so severely at odds.
Do not confuse them. They don't even work by the same mechanisms.
Evolution works because of genes.
Abiogenesis, if it ever occurred, happened long before genes ever existed.
There are many very, very good evidences and observations for biological evolution. This is why so many scientists insist that evolution is a fact.
There are, to this day, very, very few evidences for abiogenesis. Any scientist who claims abiogenesis is more than a theory is delusional.
But it is assumed -- on faith really -- that it must have occurred.
It's a logical enough assumption, if your world view only allows for the physical.
To demonstrate the uncertainty and confusion the "problem" of abiogenesis poses to materialist scientists, read this science article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090205/sc_space/theenduringmysteryoflifesorigin
(I considered titling this "On the Absurdity of Abiogenesis", but that is just my personal opinion.)
Abiogenesis, for those who forget my defining it in the past, is also called "chemical evolution". It is the hypothetical origin of life from non-life by natural/chemical means.
This is often erroneously confused with evolution -- the study of the changes and adaptations in life -- and this confusion in definition is one of the major reasons why evolution and monotheistic religion seem so severely at odds.
Do not confuse them. They don't even work by the same mechanisms.
Evolution works because of genes.
Abiogenesis, if it ever occurred, happened long before genes ever existed.
There are many very, very good evidences and observations for biological evolution. This is why so many scientists insist that evolution is a fact.
There are, to this day, very, very few evidences for abiogenesis. Any scientist who claims abiogenesis is more than a theory is delusional.
But it is assumed -- on faith really -- that it must have occurred.
It's a logical enough assumption, if your world view only allows for the physical.
To demonstrate the uncertainty and confusion the "problem" of abiogenesis poses to materialist scientists, read this science article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090205/sc_space/theenduringmysteryoflifesorigin