>>13855775>Just because the origin of life is still poorly understood at the moment doesn't mean that life has some supernatural origin.Life coming from nonlife is supernatural. I haven't said anything about my beliefs because I recognize it's all philosophy, there's no way to prove one or the other or the alternatives, but I don't go around claiming my philosophical beliefs are "settled science fact" and demanding all the kids be taught it in tax-funded schools.
If evolution was true, we'd be able to prove life could come from nonlife (the best we can do in a lab still hasn't made life from nonlife); therefore it's just a philosophy, it's just a theory, it's just a possibility. It has no place being taught as a "settled science fact" as it is taught today. The "experts" lied to you.
>what made you come to the conclusion that life cannot come from non-life? It's by far the most likelyThe fact that it's never been observed despite scientists trying to make it happen for such a long time. And "most likely" is philosophy and probabilities, not science.
>for evolution, there is plenty of proof, all you have to do is googleI'm not going to make your argument for you.
>don't get what you mean by massive changes, there are massive changes between related speciesMassive changes like all life coming from the same single-celled organism. Evolution states entire domains and kingdoms will change into new domains and kingdoms, yet all we've seen is speciation.
>but evolution of new species takes a very long time, so we don't see new species emergingThe classic "it takes too long so we don't have to prove it, but you should believe anyway". This is why evolution is a religion, you're just supposed to trust the experts (the clergy) and believe they're right (faith).
>>13855791I haven't said anything about my beliefs on where we come from, just that I don't buy the evolution theory.
Scientists are allowed to be skeptical without giving an alternative explanation.
