abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

reply to post by edmc^2


Are you demanding that science have all the absolute answers, today, right now? Because no matter how many times you ask the question, "I don't know," "you don't know" and "nobody knows" is going to be your answer. Until either abiogenesis is found to work or completely be a failure, or someone proves beyond any doubt that an intelligent creator exists or does not exist, saying you don't know isn't just okay and expected, it's the only appropriate answer.

We don't know life created life and that's why scientists try what they try...because we don't know how life started and that's what scientists do. It's in their nature, you know. Some people are just like that by nature--they like real solid answers. They look for those answers without making baseless assumptions. You can make assumptions all you want but you don't know and you really have nothing productive to add to this discussion, other than information showing why you don't believe abiogenesis is possible, which is fantastic. Showing your hypothesis as to why you believe abiogenesis isn't possible is fine; however it doesn't prove it impossible and it certainly doesn't prove the existence of a creator.

Unless your point of this thread isn't to disprove or prove something but to just toss around beliefs and ideas while trying to be all smarter than everyone, then fine because that's all you're doing.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by edmc^2

 

"I don't know" to both questions. Now, here's the important bit. Pay attention closely as it seems to have slipped under your radar many times in this thread already: science not knowing does not in any way lend credibility or magic in evidence for your "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Do you understand this elementary concept?

hahahaha...

Look I even went along as to pretend that God - the Creator doesn't exist - that ONLY SCIENCE exist - nothing more nothing less - ONLY SCIENCE EXIST - NO God.

Yet you can't even see what SCIENCE has done - it has proven that Life can ONLY arise from pre-existing life.

Science can't bring back the dead!

NO ONE can animate an inanimate thing.

YET "I Don't Know" - is your answer.

Am I talking to a non-thinking person here?

IDK.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Are you demanding that science have all the absolute answers, today, right now? Because no matter how many times you ask the question, "I don't know," "you don't know" and "nobody knows" is going to be your answer. Until either abiogenesis is found to work or completely be a failure, or someone proves beyond any doubt that an intelligent creator exists or does not exist, saying you don't know isn't just okay and expected, it's the only appropriate answer.

We don't know life created life and that's why scientists try what they try...because we don't know how life started and that's what scientists do. It's in their nature, you know. Some people are just like that by nature--they like real solid answers. They look for those answers without making baseless assumptions. You can make assumptions all you want but you don't know and you really have nothing productive to add to this discussion, other than information showing why you don't believe abiogenesis is possible, which is fantastic.

Showing your hypothesis as to why you believe abiogenesis isn't possible is fine; however it doesn't prove it impossible and it certainly doesn't prove the existence of a creator.

Unless your point of this thread isn't to disprove or prove something but to just toss around beliefs and ideas while trying to be all smarter than everyone, then fine because that's all you're doing.

Are you demanding that science have all the absolute answers, today, right now?

NO - whose demanding that?

All I'm looking for is logic and common sense?

And it's becoming very obvious - you (abio people) don't have it.

Imagine that - a very simple, very basic question:

If life can arise from life - I don't know is the answer - did they teach you that in science class?

Can life arise from inanimate things> I don't know is the answer - is that what you've learned in your science class.

Common sense man - where's your common sense?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by edmc^2

 

"I don't know" to both questions. Now, here's the important bit. Pay attention closely as it seems to have slipped under your radar many times in this thread already: science not knowing does not in any way lend credibility or magic in evidence for your "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Do you understand this elementary concept?

hahahaha...

Look I even went along as to pretend that God - the Creator doesn't exist - that ONLY SCIENCE exist - nothing more nothing less - ONLY SCIENCE EXIST - NO God.

Ask your questions 100 years ago about phenomenon we couldn't explain then but can now. See how ludicrous your God of the Gaps fallacy is? No, you probably don't.

Yet you can't even see what SCIENCE has done - it has proven that Life can ONLY arise from pre-existing life.

Nope, you're just making things up again. "We don't know" is not "proof" that "life can ONLY arise from pre-existing life". You still are not grasping this very basic concept, are you?

Science can't bring back the dead!

NO ONE can animate an inanimate thing.

YET "I Don't Know" - is your answer.

Erm... what? You're rambling again. Please reform this into a coherent argument.

Am I talking to a non-thinking person here?

Nope, that's just your internal monologue.

IDK.

Uh huh, yet you do claim to know based on absolutely zero evidence. 17 pages on and you have no evidence what so ever. You're just repeating the same circular argument and commiting the same fallacies over and over and over and over...

Originally posted by edmc^2

All I'm looking for is logic and common sense?

Yeah... now is probably a good time to point out that you actually come across as very ignorant and irrational.

And it's becoming very obvious - you (abio people) don't have it.

...and neither do you.

Imagine that - a very simple, very basic question:

If life can arise from life - I don't know is the answer - did they teach you that in science class?

That's not even a sentence, let alone a question. What exactly are you trying to say?

Can life arise from inanimate things> I don't know is the answer - is that what you've learned in your science class.

...what?

Common sense man - where's your common sense?

Never mind common sense, start talking sense first then we'll come to the garden variety.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by edmc^2

 

"I don't know" to both questions. Now, here's the important bit. Pay attention closely as it seems to have slipped under your radar many times in this thread already: science not knowing does not in any way lend credibility or magic in evidence for your "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Do you understand this elementary concept?

hahahaha...

Look I even went along as to pretend that God - the Creator doesn't exist - that ONLY SCIENCE exist - nothing more nothing less - ONLY SCIENCE EXIST - NO God.

Ask your questions 100 years ago about phenomenon we couldn't explain then but can now. See how ludicrous your God of the Gaps fallacy is? No, you probably don't.

Yet you can't even see what SCIENCE has done - it has proven that Life can ONLY arise from pre-existing life.

Nope, you're just making things up again. "We don't know" is not "proof" that "life can ONLY arise from pre-existing life". You still are not grasping this very basic concept, are you?

Science can't bring back the dead!

NO ONE can animate an inanimate thing.

YET "I Don't Know" - is your answer.

Erm... what? You're rambling again. Please reform this into a coherent argument.

Am I talking to a non-thinking person here?

Nope, that's just your internal monologue.

IDK.

Uh huh, yet you do claim to know based on absolutely zero evidence. 17 pages on and you have no evidence what so ever. You're just repeating the same circular argument and commiting the same fallacies over and over and over and over...

the fallacy is that you can't even admit what science had already accomplished - this is what amazes me. You claim to be scientific, yet when presented a scientific evidence - you revert to the circular argument of IDK.

Did anyone has ever debunked Dr. Pasteur's experiment?

Nope! Pasteurization is a fact of life.

has anyone proven abiogenesis hypothesis - that you can create, produce, animate life from non-living matter?

Nope - not one - even 100 or 1000 years from now because it is a scientific fact that life can only arise from life.

That I'm 100% sure of.

reply to post by edmc^2


Let's take the attitude and put it over to the side for a moment and I'm going to ask you to be serious and show a bit of respect, just for a minute or two, because I may have genuinely missed something in your OP and follow-up arguments in this thread.

Boil your OP down for me, and then explain what your intent was in this thread. When I read it and got to the point where I started replying, I was under the impression your OP was about your own theory about abiogeneiss being wrong and then you showed your reasoning behind that belief.

Am I on track with that?

So is your intent to prove aboigenesis wrong or to prove the existence of intelligent design? Or is it to do both? Because I honestly don't know what answer you are looking for or what you are trying to achieve.

If you can't answer those basic questions and and if you can't leave the snark out of your reply, I will be bowing out of this thread.

reply to post by edmc^2

Nope - not one - even 100 or 1000 years from now because it is a scientific fact that life can only arise from life. That I'm 100% sure of.

Ahh, I got you now. You can't be more clear than that.

Have fun with your thread.

reply to post by edmc^2


Has life been observed arising from non life? - no.

Has god been observed? - no.

Have magical spaghetti monsters been observed? - no.

Have omniscient pink unicorns been observed? - no.

Have omnipresent leprechauns been observed? - no.

Have omnipotent fairies been observed? - no.

Ergo...god did it. WTF ?

Unlike all of the other non observations of imaginary beings, the first one is a process, one that we know did happen. We don't understand this natural process, as of yet. Your assertion of proof that it can't happen is a negative one and a logical fallacy.

This in itself doesn't lend validity in any way to fairies or magical sky leprechauns, because to attribute any process to them, you would first need to establish that they exist.

Has the negative psychological effects of religious cult indoctrination been observed? - yes. It has been observed and documented.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Nope - not one - even 100 or 1000 years from now because it is a scientific fact that life can only arise from life. That I'm 100% sure of.

Ahh, I got you now. You can't be more clear than that.

Have fun with your thread.

Glad that you got it - ain't true science cool?

BTW - it's arrogant for man to assume that someday - maybe in 100 or 1000 years that he/she's able to bring back the dead or create life from non-living things.

And that is abioGenesis in nutshell - life arising from non-life.

I think that's what you can't accept.

Anyway thanks for participating.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Has life been observed arising from non life? - no.

Has god been observed? - no.

Have magical spaghetti monsters been observed? - no.

Have omniscient pink unicorns been observed? - no.

Have omnipresent leprechauns been observed? - no.

Have omnipotent fairies been observed? - no.

Ergo...god did it. WTF ?

Unlike all of the other non observations of imaginary beings, the first one is a process, one that we know did happen. We don't understand this natural process, as of yet. Your assertion of proof that it can't happen is a negative one and a logical fallacy.

This in itself doesn't lend validity in any way to fairies or magical sky leprechauns, because to attribute any process to them, you would first need to establish that they exist.

Has the negative psychological effects of religious cult indoctrination been observed? - yes. It has been observed and documented.

you forgot this -

has it is been proven that life comes only from life?

Yes - 100% yes - absolutely yes.

If so where did life came from?

I guess your answer is IDK.

I get it.

As for

Has the negative psychological effects of religious cult indoctrination been observed?

Nope NOT "religious cult indoctrination" but plain old common sense.

Which is so clear to me now - believers of abiogenesis - lack logic and common sense - has been observed and documented.

Originally posted by edmc^2

has anyone proven abiogenesis hypothesis - that you can create, produce, animate life from non-living matter?

Nope - not one - even 100 or 1000 years from now because it is a scientific fact that life can only arise from life.

That I'm 100% sure of.

Did you consult your crystal ball, or divine this prophecy?

It certainly becomes clearer why you believe that your imagination did it (god).

Instead of wrongly believing negative arguments towards science, based on logical fallacies will validate figments of your imagination (god), why don't you provide positive proof that god exists (directly, not through secondary assumptions)? Until then, this is just another attempt to promote superstitious belief and squeeze it into the gaps in current scientific understanding. god has been reduced to existing only in ever dwindling areas where science doesn't yet have answers. If Thor is the god of thunder, this version must surely be the god of ignorance.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Which is so clear to me now - believers of abiogenesis - lack logic and common sense - has been observed and documented.

edit on 21-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: nope

I do wonder how the statement "I don't know" = a positive belief in anything?

There appears to be only one person here claiming truth, based on his belief.

Before you can claim god is responsible for anything in a scientific sense, it isn't unreasonable to first ask for verification of its existence. First, prove for us directly (as opposed to providing personal assumptions) that god exists (or leprechauns, or unicorns, or fairies) instead of offering only your belief...and we can take it from there. So that we can also directly observe this being in a verifiable and repeatable way.

It does appear presently that the only hope we have of doing this would be indirectly, via EEG/MRI neuroscience type experiments. There have already been some fascinating experiments this way in the area of (particularly unfounded) beliefs.

It could be supported by experiment that god exists as a belief in people's psychological processes. Due to having no other known type of genuinely verifiable existence besides this, or outside of the psyche of certain people, it has a real possibilty of being a mistaken belief . Particularly if this belief contradicts known facts, it strongly hints at fantasy (may or may not apply here, I don't know the extent of your beliefs). Can you offer us direct and genuine proof of its existence first, so that we can be sure your assertions are not simply based on a personal fantasy? The we can include god as a genuine possibility.

Until someone comes up with a genuinely verifiable answer, I (like others) will keep saying "I don't know". While this might not please your own brand of logic, it will at least be honest...

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Eh???

So I'm a

"anti-science"... "a scientific luddite"

- is that all you got Noncompatible? ad hominem attacks?

Well if I'm one then you should be able to answer my scientifically constructed questions:

That is, do you think the universe with all it's amazing fine tuned properties (as listed below) just came to be by mere chance/accident?

1) The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite

2) the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent

3) a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur

4) if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable

5) without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed

6) had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible

7) and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.

If so please explain how scientifically is that possible?


And do you know the answers to the questions below?

1) Exactly how does the body communicate its need to the cell, and how does it trigger part of the DNA molecule to “unzip” at just the right place and later to go back together?

2) What prevents the rest of the DNA helix from “unzipping”?

3) How did not only the right chemicals, but also all the right mechanisms, such as the ribosomes, come to be in the cell for the making of a new strand of RNA?

4) How does the ribosome “read” the RNA and exactly how are just the right chemicals provided at the right places to reproduce the DNA’s pattern and to make the proper protein?

5) How is the information encoded on DNA transferred to cell enzymes that then control the growth of new cells?

And finally, we encounter the biggest question of all:

6) How did such complex substances, and life itself, get there in the first place?

If you think abioGenesis is capable of producing the amazing cell, the DNA structure surely you won't any problem answering my SCIENTIFIC questions above.

Time to put up or....

An observation of a behavior is not an attack, it is an observation.

Evading the issue, is not an answer.

"I don't know, but am hoping we find out" is a valid response.

"I don't know. Therefore god." is a nonsensical answer.

I had written you off, but felt I should at least respond.

Enjoy yourself and please at least try to embrace new knowledge, if only a little.


Remember if you truly believe...then all we will find is the evidence of your gods handiwork.

And stop trying to shoot the messengers, after all if by some chance you are correct, god made us this way. Who are you to argue ?

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Eh???

So I'm a

"anti-science"... "a scientific luddite"

- is that all you got Noncompatible? ad hominem attacks?

Well if I'm one then you should be able to answer my scientifically constructed questions:

That is, do you think the universe with all it's amazing fine tuned properties (as listed below) just came to be by mere chance/accident?

1) The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite

2) the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent

3) a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur

4) if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable

5) without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed

6) had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible

7) and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.

If so please explain how scientifically is that possible?


And do you know the answers to the questions below?

1) Exactly how does the body communicate its need to the cell, and how does it trigger part of the DNA molecule to “unzip” at just the right place and later to go back together?

2) What prevents the rest of the DNA helix from “unzipping”?

3) How did not only the right chemicals, but also all the right mechanisms, such as the ribosomes, come to be in the cell for the making of a new strand of RNA?

4) How does the ribosome “read” the RNA and exactly how are just the right chemicals provided at the right places to reproduce the DNA’s pattern and to make the proper protein?

5) How is the information encoded on DNA transferred to cell enzymes that then control the growth of new cells?

And finally, we encounter the biggest question of all:

6) How did such complex substances, and life itself, get there in the first place?

If you think abioGenesis is capable of producing the amazing cell, the DNA structure surely you won't any problem answering my SCIENTIFIC questions above.

Time to put up or....

An observation of a behavior is not an attack, it is an observation.

Evading the issue, is not an answer.

"I don't know, but am hoping we find out" is a valid response.

"I don't know. Therefore god." is a nonsensical answer.

I had written you off, but felt I should at least respond.

Enjoy yourself and please at least try to embrace new knowledge, if only a little.


Remember if you truly believe...then all we will find is the evidence of your gods handiwork.

And stop trying to shoot the messengers, after all if by some chance you are correct, god made us this way. Who are you to argue ?

OK good luck with your search but just to let you know the answers are staring you in the eyes - you're just refusing to see them.

In the meantime proponents of Creation are way ahead of you as we've already passed the how and what but are in the why. And the answers are wonderful and just truly amazing.

You on the other hand is stuck in first gear - just like the flat-earther's denying the fact that

LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE - now that science my friend.

But something that I learned further from this thread.

abioGenesis hypothesis on the other hand is NOT only a silly idea but fundamentally founded on "I Don't Know".

Like I said - good luck with your search.

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK good luck with your search but just to let you know the answers are staring you in the eyes - you're just refusing to see them.

This is your opinion, not objective evidence.

In the meantime proponents of Creation are way ahead of you as we've already passed the how and what but are in the why. And the answers are wonderful and just truly amazing.

This is outright false.

You on the other hand is stuck in first gear - just like the flat-earther's denying the fact that

Again, you are confusing your own personal opinion with objective evidence. Not only this but the objective evidence refutes your opinion. That makes you wilfully ignorant, deluded or both.

LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE

Nope, still not a shred of evidence for your unfounded opinions.

now that science my friend.

Nope, you're only illustrating your ignorance of science.

But something that I learned further from this thread.

Oh boy, here we go...

abioGenesis hypothesis on the other hand is NOT only a silly idea

There is at least some evidence for it as opposed to zero evidence for your imaginary friend. But of course you're lying when you said you "learned" this, as you came into this thread with pre-held beliefs that you are completely un willing to change. That it not how science works, thank god (and by god i mean Our True Saviour, Zeus).

but fundamentally founded on "I Don't Know".

That's where every quest for knowledge starts. Yours, however, stops at the get go with "I do know because my imaginary friend told me".

Like I said - good luck with your search.

At least we're searching. Can you imagine how stunted humanity would be if we had your attitude of "I do know because someone else told me who reckons they spoke to my imaginary friend and that's good enough for me"? We'd still be banging rocks together and quivering at the wrath of thunder gods.

I think this thread has run its course. I'm not going to bother pandering to your delusions any more and quite frankly I'm feeling embarrassed for you at the level of ignorance and narrow mindedness you've shown.

reply to post by john_bmth


On the contrary - I fully accept what true Science has brought us. It gave us a good understanding on how things work - what makes them tick.

But what amazes me are people claiming to know science and claiming to support science yet when presented with SCIENTIFIC FACTS - never mind the existence of God to placate their ego - they turn around and go a complete 180, pretending not to know the facts.

Case in point - your statement below:


Science has shown us that:

LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE

but you say:

Nope, still not a shred of evidence for your unfounded opinions.

I say "now that is science my friend".

You say:

Nope, you're only illustrating your ignorance of science.

So it's NOT ME who is illustrating ignorance in SCIENCE but the one who is claiming that "not a shred of evidence for your unfounded opinions" to say that

Life comes from life.

That Life by all accounts can ONLY be produced from pre-existing life.

To quote you again:

Nope, still not a shred of evidence for your unfounded opinions.

Total ignorance of the scientific fact.

I echo the same words penned by the author of the book "The Origin Of Life":

“By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.”

He added:

“Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.”

In other words what the author is saying:

‘Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So even though it's not supported by facts it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously.’

That my friend is where you are.

Any way thanks for participating.

Originally posted by edmc^2
hahahaha...

Look I even went along as to pretend that God - the Creator doesn't exist - that ONLY SCIENCE exist - nothing more nothing less - ONLY SCIENCE EXIST - NO God.

Yet you can't even see what SCIENCE has done - it has proven that Life can ONLY arise from pre-existing life.

Science can't bring back the dead!

NO ONE can animate an inanimate thing.

YET "I Don't Know" - is your answer.

Am I talking to a non-thinking person here?

IDK.

But science hasn't proved that life can only come from life. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this despite it clearly being explained to you. Science doesn't yet know that answer of the origin of life, and claiming otherwise is a lie. Science is actively trying to find the answer. You are just sitting back and criticizing them for attempting to learn more about our origins, when you yourself are not looking for answers, you are just accepting what you are told by your parents or whoever else. Attacking a hypothesis because it hasn't been proved yet, is silly, because that's what defines a hypothesis. Like I said, it's similar to claiming the concept of cell phones was impossible 50 years ago. It's just making the assumption because our knowledge and technology hadn't reached those heights yet. Do you believe science is maxed out and will not learn any more from today forward?

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Ergo Sum

Problem with this "I don't know" stand is that no matter what evidence is presented - it will still be "I Don't Know" unless the person is willing to accept that there's no other alternative but to accept the fact that Life comes only from life.

Simple as that.

To quote physicist H. S. Lipson who studied the odds against a spontaneous origin for life:

“The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

He further observed that after Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species,

“evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it."

-- Physics Bulletin, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” by H. S. Lipson, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff:

“From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. . . . For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe—and finding it.”

-- Daily Express, London, “There Must Be a God,” by Geoffrey Levy, August 14, 1981, p. 28.

Whether you believe these scientists or not the fact remains that you can't get life from non-life.

Simple as that.

As for

Before you can claim god is responsible for anything in a scientific sense, it isn't unreasonable to first ask for verification of its existence. First, prove for us directly (as opposed to providing personal assumptions) that god exists (or leprechauns, or unicorns, or fairies) instead of offering only your belief...and we can take it from there. So that we can also directly observe this being in a verifiable and repeatable way.

How would you propose to do this?

If you're able to stand in front of a super Nova or peer through the invisible realm beyond time and space then you might be able to see him.

But like I said - with all the evidence we have here on earth and still it does not convince you, how would his presenting himself to you makes a difference?

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
hahahaha...

Look I even went along as to pretend that God - the Creator doesn't exist - that ONLY SCIENCE exist - nothing more nothing less - ONLY SCIENCE EXIST - NO God.

Yet you can't even see what SCIENCE has done - it has proven that Life can ONLY arise from pre-existing life.

Science can't bring back the dead!

NO ONE can animate an inanimate thing.

YET "I Don't Know" - is your answer.

Am I talking to a non-thinking person here?

IDK.

But science hasn't proved that life can only come from life. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this despite it clearly being explained to you. Science doesn't yet know that answer of the origin of life, and claiming otherwise is a lie. Science is actively trying to find the answer. You are just sitting back and criticizing them for attempting to learn more about our origins, when you yourself are not looking for answers, you are just accepting what you are told by your parents or whoever else. Attacking a hypothesis because it hasn't been proved yet, is silly, because that's what defines a hypothesis. Like I said, it's similar to claiming the concept of cell phones was impossible 50 years ago. It's just making the assumption because our knowledge and technology hadn't reached those heights yet. Do you believe science is maxed out and will not learn any more from today forward?

edit on 22-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

So are you claiming that someday man will be capable of resurrecting the dead?

If so then will you that a miracle?

And if this is the case what's the difference between what Jesus' did thousands of years ago and your prediction of the future?