Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

Originally posted by Horza

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I am a Creationist. Who disagrees with the science involved, or lack of science involved with Abiogenesis.

Why beat around the bush?

BAC ... cmon mate ... you were beating around the bush.

All the "why does religion have to come into it" and "his name is Gerald" and "this is not about evolution" stuff

Why didn't you just come out and say that you where a Creationists who thought that science is wrong when it comes to origins and species?

We all knew it, and gave you plenty of chances to be straight, but you became all righteous and accused us of going off topic when, in fact, we were right on topic.

But at least, now, we know where you stand on this topic.

So ... let's continue ...

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I think that certain scientist's and peer review journal's purposely reject any research that goes against convention. Especially if the results would lead to ANY question of there being a God.

Which is unfortunate.

I disagree.

I think that all scientists would love to see indisputable evidence of there being a god. That would be the most profound scientific discovery of all time and no scientists would disagree with that.

I think what you are confusing here is the rejection of papers that have no actual testable evidence or testable theories and are based in religious dogma that agree with or are compatible with your faith.

The reality is that Creation science has no testable evidence in any field of science that supports the idea that all life forms where made spontaneously by a god as they appear today.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Here's a list of Christian Scientists, not just Scientists, but among the top 100 of all time:
...

Did they let their religion interfere with their research? Hardly.

They didn't ... and they where very good scientists.

Did you know that about 40% of all scientists today believe in a faith based religion of some kind?

You should watch this:

However these scientists below did let their religion interfere with their research ... and they make very poor scientists in the fields of evolution and abiogenesis:

Michael J Behe
David Berlinski
Paul Chien
William A Dembski
David DeWolf
Guillermo Gonzalez
Michael Newton Keas
Jay W Richards
Jonathan Wells
Benjamin Wiker
Jonathan Witt

Source

What do you think of this statement of faith?

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

"Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

This applies to everyone. Including scientists. Everyone is fallible. Unless you're gonna produce a list of perfect people? As for going against scripture, that would depend on specifics.

No, I'm saying scientists that go against the mainstream are subject to discrimination. Whether religion is involved or not. ie; Tesla, Einstein, etc..

I would like for someone to show me where a self replicating single celled life form was created in a lab?
They cant do it in a controlled enviroment but it "just happened" out in the field. PLEASE, the PTB have rewritten history and confused the facts so much we are clueless to our origins.
I find it mind blowing that a conspiracy website that see's demons in every facet of government, entertainment and media. Has so many people who defend so staunchly a ridiculas idea as evolution. Has it ever occured to any of you that the PTB want it that way. Have you think were mud men born outta pig swill? I'm sorry, I say we have a divine heritage and a divine future for the taking! If you would only want it. Ok sorry for the rant I dont ussually get mixed up in these type of threads but this one got to me. PEACE

reply to post by HooHaa

I would like for someone to show me where a self replicating single celled life form was created in a lab? They cant do it in a controlled enviroment but it "just happened" out in the field.

This is one of the more idiotic lines I've heard on ATS in awhile. We're spending millions of dollars on the LHC supercollider in Geneva to test for a particle - and the damned thing doesn't work properly. We haven't been able to reproduce what actually happens when particles collide at such high velocity. However, these collisions are taking place constantly in the upper atmosphere.

So, just because it hasn't YET been demonstrated in the lab, doesn't mean it doesn't happen in the field.

Hell, we can barely get Panda Bears to mate in captivity. We have to supply them with Panda porn and Viagra and panda Spanish fly... and even then, it usually comes down to artificial insemination. So does that mean they don't breed in the wild?!?

Pfft.

the PTB have rewritten history and confused the facts so much we are clueless to our origins.

Do you even know who "TPTB" are? Got any names? When did they become part of this elite group? Is it invitation only, or can anyone with sufficient wealth, influence, or power join? Then, just what exactly about our history have they changed? What individual changed what factoid about our history? Can you tell me that?

Have you think were mud men born outta pig swill?

Neither Abiogenesis or Evolution posit that we came from mud or "Pig Swill". Only ONE authority claims that humanity came from mud/dirt/dust - and that is the bible.

I'm sorry, I say we have a divine heritage and a divine future for the taking!

I say this is dangerous thinking. It promotes the ideas of endless supply, manifest destiny, and ecological rape in the name of a god-given right to hold domination over the Earth. Not just the Earth, but your fellow man as well. Has it ever occurred to you that the rulers of old were often said to be deities in the flesh, or made kings by divine providence. This means the fictional "PTB" hailing from royal bloodlines which rule over you with an imaginary iron fist are only your rulers because their position is ordained by god. They are obeying their divine call to take full measure of their heritage and destiny at whatever cost to your or your family.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by TruthParadox

 

Evidence that a conspiracy can be committed by one person?

Are you serious?

Ever hear of Conspiracy to Commit Murder?

I say it's a Conspiracy to Commit Murder of the Truth.

You said that there is a conspiracy.
I am not asking for evidence that a conspiracy is possible, I'm asking for evidence of this conspiracy you are talking about.

Originally posted by Sparky63
I know when I was in college that these steps were never examined closely nor was the staggering odds against any of this ever taking place by chance ever considered.

But you're wrong. It is considered.
Many scientists believe the odds of abiogenesis are extremely low, say 1 in a billion.
The thing is, with how vast our universe is and who knows how old, there are trillions of chances - so saying "1 in a billion" no longer sounds impossible when looking at the vastness of our universe.
The thing about abiogenesis is that it only had to occur once - it has the luxury of being called a 'miracle' due to the sheer vastness of our universe.

Originally posted by akabetty

Science presents evolution as fact, not theory. Go read up on it.

Actually, it does not claim it to be fact. Why don't you go and read up on it and see clearly it's almost always referred to as 'the THEORY of Evolution'.

Yes, but if you've read any of the threads on here about evolution, most of the adherents to evolution make it seem like it IS a scientific fact......and they will throw out things like the study of DNA, etc. to "prove" that evolution is fact.

My "theory" is that evolution will never be proven, just like the Genesis story in the Bible, which could be just as possible.

(Ooops, maybe I already proved Genesis to be false, because I called it a "story"....... :lol

I do think Genesis is just as credible as Evolution, and just as unprovable.
But, at least the Bible has prophecy in it that came about, so.........

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by B.A.C.

I've never been much for the elohim theory. Who created them, then?

And so forth..

[edit on 3-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Regardless of how they originated, they created humans

Then the question still remains on the origin of life...who created them? If there is life on the Elohim planet(s) then would they have a different Theory of Evolution? That is if the theory is true of course...

reply to post by B.A.C.



The origins of life - Abiogenesis - it's not only about primordial soup. That isn't the basis of all Abiogenesis. There are scientists who study, theorize and promote panspermia - indirect and direct, Interventionism (Elohims, God, Annunaki etc etc) and also Creationism.

I think this post stems from your frustrations on the other thread. I respect what everyone believes...to an extent. No-one likes to be preached too but at the end of the day haven't we all got a common goal? Theories are there to be proved or disproved and it's an individuals choice as to which he wants to prove or disprove or just choose to believe. Personally my beliefs are ever-changing due to research and new information I discover....Christ I started out on all this after watching "the most amazing, controversial, informative life-changing documentary......in the world!" ... about Zecheria Sitchin... I know, but i was a newbie and thankfully I've seen the err of my ways lol but i did develop an interest for ancient civilisations and the likes. I also read up on the religious dino dude from Florida, again very captivating with some good points that made sense, then annunaki stepped in and then I was big bang/primordial soup....

Recently I've started looking into the bible and references which point to interventionism/creationism and how "god" didn't create the universe but maybe perhaps the earth and life here... like terra-forming of some type perhaps? All I'm saying is no-one knows the answer and that's the wonder of it. We have loads of people globally working on proving and disproving theories in the aim of that common goal...the answer THE answer. It'd be best if we praised and asked each other how we were progressing instead of pompous playground behaviour that is rife throughout the scientific, political, religious world.

reply to post by Sparky63


suppose the best reply to a recycled post is another recycled post...

Originally posted by melatonin
Sparky, it's just BS statistics, tornado in the junkyard rubbish.

They don't call it 'Hoyle's fallacy' for nothing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Amazingly, sparky gets a response in the thread about evidence of preselection for L-enantiomers, but I guess it's still being digested...

Originally posted by Sparky63
reply to post by melatonin

 

Thanks for the information. This is going to take some time to digest.

14/3/2008

Other Sparky posts are just random C&P from around and about.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science would like us to believe that they know where life came from, when in reality they have no clue.

SciENTISTS, not science.

Scientists DONT know. Where did you read or hear that? They are working on theories on HOW life comes from non-life, but in no way have they stated WHERE in the galaxy it came from.

Science also claims that this has nothing to do with evolution, even though Darwin himself wrote The Origin of the Species.

The book named "on the origin of species" and the phrase "origin of life" are two DIFFERENT things now arent they?

The book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin's book contains a wealth of evidence that the diversity of life arose through a branching pattern of evolution and common descent.

He speaks of origion of SPECIES, not LIFE.

Science calls the study of the origin of life Abiogenesis. Which is the study of how life could have developed out of inanimate matter. Basically something from nothing.

NO. If a thing is inanimate it is still SOMETHING. So maybe: something from something else would be better?

This is also related to the Primordial Soup Theory or Biopoesis which claims that life evolved (even though this has nothing to do with evolution, as claimed by scientists), from non living, yet self replicating molecules.

I know you dont understand at all, (i dont either) but ill TRY to help you a little.. Evolution is a term with many meanings. Evolution is not exclusively a term of biology. There are also evolutionary economics, evolution of languages or evolution of networks.

Now, yu can say life evolved from non-life.. or arose from non life.

abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things change over time.

Now you dont have to be confused anymore Even though i suspect you are purposly denying knowledge. Dont be ignorant. Remember, we're here to deny ignorance.

Originally posted by Daniem

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Science would like us to believe that they know where life came from, when in reality they have no clue.

SciENTISTS, not science.

Scientists DONT know. Where did you read or hear that? They are working on theories on HOW life comes from non-life, but in no way have they stated WHERE in the galaxy it came from.

Science also claims that this has nothing to do with evolution, even though Darwin himself wrote The Origin of the Species.

The book named "on the origin of species" and the phrase "origin of life" are two DIFFERENT things now arent they?

The book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin's book contains a wealth of evidence that the diversity of life arose through a branching pattern of evolution and common descent.

He speaks of origion of SPECIES, not LIFE.

Science calls the study of the origin of life Abiogenesis. Which is the study of how life could have developed out of inanimate matter. Basically something from nothing.

NO. If a thing is inanimate it is still SOMETHING. So maybe: something from something else would be better?

This is also related to the Primordial Soup Theory or Biopoesis which claims that life evolved (even though this has nothing to do with evolution, as claimed by scientists), from non living, yet self replicating molecules.

I know you dont understand at all, (i dont either) but ill TRY to help you a little.. Evolution is a term with many meanings. Evolution is not exclusively a term of biology. There are also evolutionary economics, evolution of languages or evolution of networks.

Now, yu can say life evolved from non-life.. or arose from non life.

abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things change over time.

Now you dont have to be confused anymore

Even though i suspect you are purposly denying knowledge. Dont be ignorant. Remember, we're here to deny ignorance.

I'm aware that the two fields of study are separate. Where did I say they weren't? What I said was I consider the concept of a molecule "evolving" to be along the same lines of "evolution".

Why don't scientists want to make the field of abiogenesis a part of the field of evolution? Quite simple, then they would have to admit that there is no proof for either.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Daniem


SciENTISTS, not science.

Can you not make the distinction he is talking about Science as a whole or the consensus of Scientists in Science, or do you just like to nit pick and split hairs.

Scientists DONT know. Where did you read or hear that? They are working on theories on HOW life comes from non-life, but in no way have they stated WHERE in the galaxy it came from.

Oh jeez,, another hair splitting headache.

The book named "on the origin of species" and the phrase "origin of life" are two DIFFERENT things now arent they?

yes they are but I hope you aren't making the way a title of a book can also be used in a phrase being the context of that quote.

The book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Addressed already

Darwin's book contains a wealth of evidence that the diversity of life arose through a branching pattern of evolution and common descent.

It is a long winded poorly written atheistic attempt to explain away the God he resented having to believe was how we arrived. The evidence in it was proof of variation and adaptation but the rest is an absurd idiotic notion he arrived at by pure speculation and a hell of a lot of imagination with a scandalous hint of lamarkism. Darwins so called discovery is the most over hyped, over rated, hyper sensationalized idea or hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. He wasn't the Naturalist on the beagle he was a passenger who paid his own way. He was basically a hobbyist who has become the spencer gifts life size idol for Atheist's who invariably have a poster of him tacked to the inside of their closet door in the dorm room right next to the one they have of David hasselhoff and the Fonze

He speaks of origion of SPECIES, not LIFE.

Conventional wisdom would suggest that going back given enough time we would see the first species come to life hence the ORIGIN of species would be life begining.

NO. If a thing is inanimate it is still SOMETHING. So maybe: something from something else would be better?

This assumes there was always "something" and that nothingness could not have been. How do you know?

I know you dont understand at all, (i dont either) but ill TRY to help you a little.. Evolution is a term with many meanings. Evolution is not exclusively a term of biology. There are also evolutionary economics, evolution of languages or evolution of networks.

Oh don't be so presumptuous guy, the only one that seems to be having a problem with context and meaning is you. You are doing it purposely too unless of course you really think he doesn't know all the equivocations one can make using the many differen't meanings of evolution to fit any argument you think you can win by being a smart azz.

Now you dont have to be confused anymore

Even though i suspect you are purposly denying knowledge. Dont be ignorant. Remember, we're here to deny ignorance.

Great, then Ill start wth YOURS.

Get a clue

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by melatonin


Good to see you again Melatonin. I did in fact read & digest the information you posted about preselection for L-enantiomers. It was interesting, but in no way explains why life favors left handed amino acids. Nor does it make the process of Abio-Genesis any less complex.

The speculation the crystals of Calcite had any bearing on the spontaneous generation of life is nothing more than conjecture.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there is a greater concentration of left handed amino acids.

There are hundreds of amino acids that occur in nature, but only about 20 kinds are found in most proteins. These amino acids can be arranged in an almost endless number of combinations. Consider: If just 20 amino acids form a chain 100 amino acids long, that chain can be arranged in over 10100 different ways—that is, 1 followed by 100 zeros!


Keep in mind that even a simple protein n may contain about 300 to 400 amino acids. Once again, all left handed and arranged in the proper order.

No matter how you cut it or what you call it (Hoyles Fallacy) The amazing complexity and should not be ignored nor discounted.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by TruthParadox

 

Evidence that a conspiracy can be committed by one person?

Are you serious?

Ever hear of Conspiracy to Commit Murder?

I say it's a Conspiracy to Commit Murder of the Truth.

You said that there is a conspiracy.
I am not asking for evidence that a conspiracy is possible, I'm asking for evidence of this conspiracy you are talking about.

Originally posted by Sparky63
I know when I was in college that these steps were never examined closely nor was the staggering odds against any of this ever taking place by chance ever considered.

But you're wrong. It is considered.
Many scientists believe the odds of abiogenesis are extremely low, say 1 in a billion.
The thing is, with how vast our universe is and who knows how old, there are trillions of chances - so saying "1 in a billion" no longer sounds impossible when looking at the vastness of our universe.
The thing about abiogenesis is that it only had to occur once - it has the luxury of being called a 'miracle' due to the sheer vastness of our universe.

Evidence of a conspiracy? Just look what happens to someone who tries to question abiogenesis or evolution. They are instantly ridiculed and silenced by the mainstream.

Just like in these threads.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Evidence of a conspiracy? Just look what happens to someone who tries to question abiogenesis or evolution. They are instantly ridiculed and silenced by the mainstream.

Just like in these threads.

That's all well and good, but what is the motive for doing that? Why would someone want to place the idea that abiogenesis or evolution is truth into your head, regardless of what is truth and fiction? Who gains from such an act?

Do most "evolutionists" or abiogenesists really ridicule people who QUESTION evolution and/or abiogenesis, or do they they ridicule people who COMPLETELY REJECT evolution and/or abiogenesis?

Just a few questions

Originally posted by flyindevil
That's all well and good, but what is the motive for doing that? Why would someone want to place the idea that abiogenesis or evolution is truth into your head, regardless of what is truth and fiction? Who gains from such an act?

Some Christians would say Satan, with the motive being to turn believers away from God.

Do most "evolutionists" or abiogenesists really ridicule people who QUESTION evolution and/or abiogenesis, or do they they ridicule people who COMPLETELY REJECT evolution and/or abiogenesis?

Yup, they ridicule people who question it. I reject abiogenesis. However, I only question people who call evolution fact. I don't mind if they use the word theory.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evidence of a conspiracy? Just look what happens to someone who tries to question abiogenesis or evolution. They are instantly ridiculed and silenced by the mainstream.

Just like in these threads.

Just look what happens when someone tries to question gravity...
That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, just that the evidence is all on one side of the table.
As far as abiogenesis goes, not so much.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evidence of a conspiracy? Just look what happens to someone who tries to question abiogenesis or evolution. They are instantly ridiculed and silenced by the mainstream.

Just like in these threads.

Just look what happens when someone tries to question gravity...
That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, just that the evidence is all on one side of the table.
As far as abiogenesis goes, not so much.

Not a very good analogy IMHO.

Not many groups attempting to question gravity.

reply to post by B.A.C.


BAC...no flaming, either direction.....OK?

This IS, after all, the 'Origins and Creationism Conspiracy' forum....(not why the word 'conspiracy' is in there, maybe just because it's ATS)?

But, to stray for a minute or two, you mentioned gravity.

you see, what many have been trying to explain, in this thread, is that there are facts....drop an apple, whilst standing on the surface of the Earth (or the Moon, or Mars, or just about any solid planet or planetoid with environmental conditions that won't instantly vaporize the apple) then, the apple will fall, since a large enough body will produce the effect we call 'gravity'.
THAT IS what is called a 'FACT'. It is observable, and repeatable.....but WHY does it happen???

Aye, there's the crux of the dilemma!

Before Galileo, it was 'assumed' that a larger and heavier object would 'fall' faster than a smaller and lighter one. This mis-assumption was due to the inability of early observers to take into account the effects of the atmosphere.

This info is easily reasearched, so I won't belabor the details....but the gist is, SOME observations may lead to incorrect 'hypotheses'....however, sufficient continuing 'facts' and repeatable observable events foster a better understanding towards a 'theory'....and, a theory, once labeled as such, has undergone rigourous repeatable observations.

Again, a 'theory' is not just some random guess. Our familiar observations of gravity, within the gravity well of earth, are what we consider 'facts'. Even the 'Law' of gravity isn't exact....it is a misnomer.

The acceleration due to Earth's gravity is defined as (approx) 10metres/sec/sec. (this is rounded up from some fraction, something like 9.98.....)

I first learned it as 32.7feet/sec/sec

BUT, it depends on WHERE on the globe you are measuring. AND, your altitude.....because of centripetal force factors, etc, etc.....

SO....gravity....you may think it is a 'law' that you drop an apple, and it will fall. Sure, common knowledge.

BUT....WHAT IS gravity???? What actually causes gravity?

Gravity is a fact....otherwise, the apple wouldn't fall, and the planets would not rotate around the Sun....again, THOSE are the facts. But WHY?

THAT is why Gravity is still a 'theory'....itis demonstrable, observable, but not fully explained.

Errrrr...ummmm....evolution?.....sorta in a similar category as gravity, just a different field of scientific study, that's all.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

BAC...no flaming, either direction.....OK?

This IS, after all, the 'Origins and Creationism Conspiracy' forum....(not why the word 'conspiracy' is in there, maybe just because it's ATS)?

But, to stray for a minute or two, you mentioned gravity.

you see, what many have been trying to explain, in this thread, is that there are facts....drop an apple, whilst standing on the surface of the Earth (or the Moon, or Mars, or just about any solid planet or planetoid with environmental conditions that won't instantly vaporize the apple) then, the apple will fall, since a large enough body will produce the effect we call 'gravity'.
THAT IS what is called a 'FACT'. It is observable, and repeatable.....but WHY does it happen???

Aye, there's the crux of the dilemma!

Before Galileo, it was 'assumed' that a larger and heavier object would 'fall' faster than a smaller and lighter one. This mis-assumption was due to the inability of early observers to take into account the effects of the atmosphere.

This info is easily reasearched, so I won't belabor the details....but the gist is, SOME observations may lead to incorrect 'hypotheses'....however, sufficient continuing 'facts' and repeatable observable events foster a better understanding towards a 'theory'....and, a theory, once labeled as such, has undergone rigourous repeatable observations.

Again, a 'theory' is not just some random guess. Our familiar observations of gravity, within the gravity well of earth, are what we consider 'facts'. Even the 'Law' of gravity isn't exact....it is a misnomer.

The acceleration due to Earth's gravity is defined as (approx) 10metres/sec/sec. (this is rounded up from some fraction, something like 9.98.....)

I first learned it as 32.7feet/sec/sec

BUT, it depends on WHERE on the globe you are measuring. AND, your altitude.....because of centripetal force factors, etc, etc.....

SO....gravity....you may think it is a 'law' that you drop an apple, and it will fall. Sure, common knowledge.

BUT....WHAT IS gravity???? What actually causes gravity?

Gravity is a fact....otherwise, the apple wouldn't fall, and the planets would not rotate around the Sun....again, THOSE are the facts. But WHY?

THAT is why Gravity is still a 'theory'....itis demonstrable, observable, but not fully explained.

Errrrr...ummmm....evolution?.....sorta in a similar category as gravity, just a different field of scientific study, that's all.

Gravity is the result of a spacetime curvature, which has been both confirmed and observed by scientists via a lunar eclipse. As per Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

Not sure on the point of your post though.

Flaming? Of course not.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

reply to post by B.A.C.


Ah! However, BAC....in the quest for a 'T.O.E.' or, 'Theory of Everything'....which even Einstein attempted, in is day....as an advocate of the 'Steady State' theory of the Universe, Einstein inserted an 'hypothesis' into his equations, to make the math work....which he ackowledged as the greatest blunder of his life...after Hubble noticed the red shift of distant galaxies, showing that the Universe was expanding, and not in a steady state....

You see? Even Einstein could admit when he was wrong....he had an assumption, did the math, devised a 'cure'....for THAT math....but, he didn't know about the 'big bang' and 'quantum theory' (which came much, much later) because, had he lived, he would have likely embraced these new ideas....

But, you asked about 'gravity'. Well, no one can yet understand why it is so weak! I know, a large body such as the Earth exerts gravity....but a magnet the size of a pea can defy gravity....why? WHY is electromagnetism stronger than gravity????

We use electricity...we know a lot about it, but don't really understand EVERYTHING about it...it is still a 'THEORY'. Magnetism is in that category as well....and, the weak and strong nuclear forces, inside the atoms.....it is postulated that gravity is somehow related to all of those forces, but we just haven't figured it out yet...exactly.

It is a FACT of gravity....we see and feel it. IT is a FACT that atoms exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

(I know....Einstien's equations pointed to a distortion in 'space/time' to "explain" gravity....but quantum physics are opening up new possibilities...)

Gravity is a FACT.....atoms are a FACT.....

Gravity is a 'theory', because all of the 'facts', as many as there are, still haven't described it thoroughly.

Atoms are a FACT.....but the actual shape of atoms, the 'reality' of atoms, is still theoritical.

Abiogenesis.....the point....how about looking at it as the 'chicken or the egg?' problem???

Reason?? It is an over-simplicification, which is a tactic of 'creationists'!!

So far, what I've seen in this thread by the 'naysayers' is just a bunch of negativity. If, given quadrillions of molecules (and that is a very minuscule number, by the way) in the early oceans, and possible quintillions of interactions, along with a salty sea and constant electrical activity in the skies of early Earth, during its formation.....

Seems people against this concept have some sort of 'Science Fiction' approach to the concept....as if, it MUST only happen in ONE spot on Earth, as oppossed to about a million or a billion places, over a span of millenia.....

Open minds, y'all!!!