Zibbsey wrote: >I should think we'll need an origin-of-life answer to scientific standards > before we can start finalizing on the assumptions underpinning all that. >
Darwin was in my opinion the greatest scientist who ever lived because he provided a elegant answer to the question of how we got from simple bacteria to human beings. But even Darwin didn't answer all the mysteries of biology, how we got from simple chemicals to simple bacteria still remains a mystery because for Darwin's mechanism to work you need heredity and there is no clear understanding of how you could have heredity in the era before bacteria existed. > Anything remotely that appeared to question the detail of a natural > selection worldview was policed as suspicious of being creationist at root. > That's not true, many real scientists are working on the origin of life question and there are a lot of promising ideas that are worth pursuing, although nothing has been proven yet. As for religion, if it had a good explanation to the origin of life I'd become the most religious person you'd ever care to meet, but it doesn't have anything of the sort. All that religious people say is "God did it" but when asked how God did it they just say "I don't know". Well... I don't need God as the middle man, I'm perfectly capable of saying "I don't know" all by myself and don't need to invoke the God theory to do it. A logical person is allowed to say "I don't know", but a logical person is not allowed to pretend he understands something when he does not by embracing a theory that is, not necessarily wrong but is, obviously stupid. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
