Atheists rely
on the abiogenesis myth (life from non-living matter) which is irrational and unsupported by evidence, scientific and otherwise.
Not exact matches
Science does not have an answer for origin yet, but
abiogenesis is the path their
on at the moment.
He cites it, along with local
abiogenesis as two possible theories for the original development of life
on Earth.
The theory most scientists currently favor for the origins of life is called «
abiogenesis,» the gradual emergence of life
on Earth from non-living matter.
Well William, based
on how they reacted to evolution,
abiogenesis, modern cosmology and every other advance of knowledge sich Bronze Age Palestine, what do you think?
Though a biological theory like evolution,
Abiogenesis is a completely separate theory based
on connections discovered between organic and inorganic chemistry, protiens and DNA.
Jim, if you do believe in
Abiogenesis «Your entire world view is based
on an obvious work of fiction and you have been duped and self deluded enough to believe it.»
Abiogenesis is the theory of life coming from lack thereof, and the Big Bang Theory is a theory
on its own.
It is those elements we find
on earth that likely allowed the trigger for
abiogenesis and evolution.
Evolution theory is based
on a set of assumptions, among those that
abiogenesis occurred at some point; that life came from non-life.
So because we don't exactly know how
abiogenesis occurred
on our planet then «a wizard did it»?
There are many promising hypotheses addressing
abiogenesis, but even without a fully vetted theory, the evidence for evolution stands
on its own.
@Colin «Life
on Earth likely began through a long process of
abiogenesis, culminating in unicellular procaryotic bacteria» @Chad «ah..
Life
on Earth likely began through a long process of
abiogenesis, culminating in unicellular procaryotic bacteria.