Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 92,672
- 59,067
- 2,645
It remains scientifically unproven just like the existence of a god. We can give it a name but that in no way means we understand how it happened if we don't know how it happened then we cannot repeat the process therefore it isn't scientifically proven.Abiogenesis is a fact and a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life. Then, there was life. Abiogenesis connects these two states, just as star formation connects the states of "no star" and "star". What is not "proven" is how it happened, i.e., the Theory of Abiogenesis.Abiogenesis remains scientifically unproven.
So we have the religious people theorizing that a god created life and we have others saying abiogenesis created life.
Either theory can be considered valid until we can scientifically prove the existence of a god or recreate abiogenesis.
So until we figure it out and open the box we can say that both theories are true and false at the same time.
No. Star formation is an "effective theory". We , in fact, do not know exactly when and how many of the processes occur within the star and its progenitor. And whether we could describe the actions exactly or knew nothing about it at all, we would still know star formation is a fact. So this is point is kind of irrelevant. Once there was no star, then there was a star. That is enough to know star formation is a fact.We can also describe the star formation process in detail.
But it is still a fact that the process occured. Abiogenesis is a fact.Abiogenesis is still a black box and thus the process is not understood