on this thread page 20 the 3rd paragraph down stu said... "So for the umpteenth time I have never said "plenty of science showing life evolved from non life.""
No he didn't. You have no proof. Besides, there is plenty of science showing how abiogenesis happened. Only a fool would think God did it. So of course you do.
You really need to learn some recent science fc. in the past during the arguments I cited noble prize winner Jack Szostak because he stated we have no plausible pathway from non life to life. so I looked him up and found this article from 2014. It looks to me like there is still no plausible pathway and he is probably still the top guy in the field. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/jack-szostak-life-in-the-lab_b_5540478.html ... Suzan Mazur: We may never know precisely the origin of life, but how much insight into the actual origin of life do you think a protocell like yours might give us, say, on a scale of 1 to 10? Jack Szostak: We've been working on one part of the problem. Other people are working on other parts of the pathway. I don't worry, at this point, whether we'll know exactly how it happened on the early Earth. What we're trying to do is to work out a plausible pathway where all of the steps seem chemically and physically reasonable, and maybe we'll end up with multiple pathways which are all possibilities.
Yes of course you think there is no plausible pathway. You have proved time and time again that you really don't understand science. But you are so intellectually dishonest that it's hard to know what you really DO think.
I think it because that is the state of science right now. try escaping your ignorance fc. Could they prove that we evolved from the primordial soup by chance... yes. but they might also show there was a drive for life implanted in the early building blocks as another prize winner in the field has suggested.
And once again the intellectually dishonest lawyer misrepresents what Szostak thinks. Just because they currently have no complete plausible pathway it does not mean he can't imagine any plausible pathways. There are multiple pathways that are possible and he says as much. There is NO question in his mind that abiogenesis happened which is the key thing here, but of course you are not interested in essential truths only in shifty intellectually dishonest argument.