This is a rather basic question that I happen to find myself asking sometimes. What is your opinion? State which you think would've come first and give a good reason as to why. I don't know if there has already been a thread on this, but I apologize if there has.
but they really can't name creationism as reasoning because it isn't scientific
You complained about scientists not naming creationism a scientific theory, but now you say that it isn't scientific? That's a bit of a contradiction.
Of course they don't
You have to admit your phrasing made it sound like you said that >.> :P
Scientist try find the answer without going back to creationism for the one fact that it isn't proven just like abiogenesis isn't proven.
They don't go to creationism for answers because as far as we know, creationism isn't a credible scientific theory. Also, while creationism has no scientific evidence to back it up as far as we know, abiogenesis has been almost completely proven. The fact that it *has* been proven in a lab multiple times that the basis of abiogenesis, that amino acids can be created through chemical reactions with nonliving matter, lends a lot to support the theory. It's to a point where it just isn't comparable with creationism.
Alt, just made his all very clear to everyone now I'm guessing?
Not at all. There are gaping holes in his debating.
You complained about scientists not naming creationism a scientific theory, but now you say that it isn't scientific? That's a bit of a contradiction
Maybe I fail to see the contradiction? I wasn't saying scientists should name creationism a scientific theory because it's NOT. Creationism is based on faith.
abiogenesis has been almost completely proven
That would be a complete lie. First of all nothing can be completely proven because humans weren't around to document the occurence. Next, abiogenesis is NOT even close to being proven. First of all we can't even get a positive model. Sure some scientists made something similar still ending up in a dying prokaryote. You have to understand all of the conditions for this to happen for a second. In no way way can it be backed up much further because it is near impossible to imitate the conditions of the fist prokaryote forming.
Of course, I'm not at the top if my game right now. Headache, tired, etc.
and if there are such 'gaping holes,' then why aren't you actually pointing any of them out? If these holes are so gaping, you should be able to exploit these holes in my argument and easily make me lose this debate quickly. And so far, you haven't been able to do that. ----------
I wasn't saying scientists should name creationism a scientific theory because it's NOT
*rereads statement I where I thought you said that*
Sorry, I misconstrued it.
---------
First of all nothing can be completely proven because humans weren't around to document the occurence.
By 'completely proven,' I meant that there's substantial evidence for it being correct - scientists have yet to get a life-form, but the basis of it - that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be created through chemical reactions with nonliving matter - has been proven, and that is a major step forward. Enough to make it a serious possibility. I know that it's still theory, that it's not correct - but there is serious evidence supporting abiogenesis. Enough to make it not even comparable to creationism.
Creationism is based on faith.
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS. Many creationists today seem to miss the point of it - I'm glad you don't.
if you didn't relize by now, its a trick question. if you beleive in evolution, the egg came first, if your 100% christian and belive in the adam and eve creation myth, then, the egg still came first since the first of the many animals in the garden of eden layed eggs... so yea.
