posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 05:39 AM
reply to post by edmc^2
Sorry, but when it comes to abiogenesis, it's just a hypothesis, a very incomplete one that!
Why are you apologizing? You are right that there is as yet no "Theory of Abiogenesis". Hypotheses are not 'incomplete', they are 'intermediate'.
Perhaps there never will be a 'complete' theory, but there is a great deal of work going on, and a lot of progress is being made.
However you need to understand that "Abiogenesis" itself is neither an "hypothesis" nor a "theory", it is a topic of study in Biology. There are many
hypotheses about how various aspects of abiogenesis might work. Over time some of those hypotheses will be eliminated, others will be proposed, one
day they may be pulled together into a full blown Theory. There is a lot of work before that happens, if ever. You shouldn't apologize for
understanding that; that's how science works, and abiogenesis is hard.
When thought about with an open mind, Creation is 'just' an hypothesis about abiogenesis. It lacks a great deal of vigor, however, and truth be told,
has been eliminated from serious abiogenesis discussion for many, many decades (I want to say centuries, but there are examples of serious scientists
who could not give it up right into the 20th Century). The Creation Hypothesis cannot make predictions, cannot be tested, cannot be falsified,
provides no avenues for further research, and cannot be weighed against competing hypotheses. It just has too many hurdles to get over.
A biologist can ask questions of an hypothesis like: "Hypothesis: Maybe peptide chains were the primitive cell membrane. Question: If so how might
they have formed?: You cannot ask questions of the "Creation Hypothesis". No matter what the question, the only answer is "God did it. End of story".
That answer is useless in this context.
The "God did it" answer is useful in a "philosophy/psychology/inner consciousness exploration" context, but not in biology.
edit on 14/1/2014
by rnaa because: general cleanup, syntax, grammar, flow