>>13696737Then stop teaching abiogenesis in schools then yes? If you agree it's not plausible and you likewise agree that if something is not plausible then it's no different than religion then it should not be taught in schools yes?
>>13696863go back to /pol/ you tourist
>>13696871>Yes, I amSo you acknowledge you don't understand the scientific method. I agree.
>Either life originated from non-living matter, or... Or what?The author is saying his hypothesis, as well as the other paradoxical "mainstream" one he is offering an alternative to (abiogenesis), both have life originating from non-living matter.
ROFL even the Bible says some life originated from non-living matter.
The question is how.
>There's no other plausible explanationyou are begging the question that abiogenesis is a "plausible" explanation for life arising from inorganic matter. I directly asked if you, or any retard reading it, acknowledges the outlined paradoxes in that paper.
As it stands abiogenesis is not plausible until those paradoxes are addressed and resolved. They never will be. All you're doing is saying "there is no plausible explanation so we should believe my unplausible explanation because I feel like it"
>Where did the designer come from etc.There is no "etc" here. You are asking a logically unnecessary question because you want to cling to your belief system instead of question it.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis due to unresolved paradoxes and abiogenesis should be rejected outright. You are creating strawmen to circumvent this fact; making the fallacy that other options must be impossible so all we are left with is your understanding of abiogenesis, so it must be "truth". You are literally creating a false premise in the famous Sherlock Holmes pic related quote to justify your belief system. Nothing more.
