Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
It's not so much that the article appears on a creation web site, it's the content. It does a lot of work setting up false ideas to knock down. From a light read they make a lot of assumptions about what the minimum requirements for life are (with no basis for those assumptions).
|
I thought the article did a very good job at looking at what the basic requirements would be to constitute life. He quoted more than one view point on the subject and tried to simplify it as much as possible.
Quote:
|
Just because the problem of first life hasn't been solved doesn't mean it's impossible.
|
I think you are arguing that until every possible senerio for the evolving of life from non-life is examined we can't rule such a thing as impossible. Of course we will never exaust ourself of hypothetical theories so you have a point. What I can say is that science hasn't come up with a plausible theory and the possibility of finding that theory has become increasing remote with our increased understanding of the complexity of even the most simple life forms. Moreover, we have found no observable evidence that these necessary links have ever existed.
Quote:
|
Plus why if there is a problem with a specific theory of abiogenesis is Creation the only alternative?
|
Of course there being a Creator is not the only alternative. I do think that after 100 plus years of looking for an alternative a Creator still remains as the most probable hypothesis. Perhaps that will change in our life time. Until then it would be great if more scientists owned up to their limited progress instead of presenting failed theories as proven.
[/quote]