Actually, no. Your delicate, hyper-religious sensibilities might be offended but “the gawds did it” is not a viable answer.The origin of life is fully understood. You just have a problem with coming up with a plausible spin.Cripes. I just stated the thread is not about evolution but the beginning of life itself. You can’t have evolution without something living. Take a crack at it. Tell us how rocks ended up writing Concerto No 5.Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.That makes no sense.On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.
If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.
No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.
Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.
I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.
You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.
The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.
I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
You might try understanding the terms you use. The origin of life on the planet is not fully understood. All the basic building blocks of life are abundant in the universe so it may be only a matter of time before the spark of life occurred.
Tell us how your gods made a snake talk to human and scolded them for fruit theft.