I thought that humans came about when aliens had sexual intercourse with monkeys? Well, most humans that is. Mainstream medicine apologists may have resulted from aliens having anal intercourse with monkeys.
I don't think any mainstream apologist would ever have sex with an altie or monkey as you refer to your kind.
Panspermia is an idea that has been floating around for some time. And while there has been some evidence that complex molecules can occur in outerspace/ The outright conclusion that we have non terrestial origins is too ambitions and not supported by the evidence. The origin of life remains unsolved but at least we know is no reason it requires a supernatural entity.
Fancy meeting you here. Well, now that you have graced us with a visit, as a well known illustrious evolution and science loving predecessor was want to do, here's something to wrap your "scientific" mind around:
You say that there is no reason life had to have a supernatural beginning, but in doing so you trip on the obvious paradox that strict evolutionists try so desperately to explain away. Which is that they generally agree that the universe, and biological life that sprang had a beginning - a moment in time before which there was no universe and after which there was. By definition, anything that has a beginning is a creation.
That is the crux, isn't it? Any beginning is by definition a moment of creation, and once that is accepted, as it must be, you are faced with the inescapable fact that every creation hada source of creation - something that both preceded and superceded the creation. Thus our natural universe and the resultant life were created by something that superceded and was superior to them. In other words, a creator which was, once again by definition, supernatural.
Call it what you want and try to explain it away all you want, but at the end of the day it is inescapable that life was created by something supernatural.
Many who try to explain away the obvious creation of the universe as something random or something that they are somehow superior enough to explain likely do so because they cannot accept the idea that anything could possibly be beyond their knowledge or (gasp) superior to them. Yet by comparison, humans and their woefully limited science are insignificant compared to the creation and their attempts to explain it away in order to deny how vastly greater it is to them is the ultimate delusion.
Such delusions has always been the downfall of those whose religion is the false science of the day. By limiting themselves to the restraints of their false self-created paradigm that only accepts what their limited science tells them is verifiable and true, they become less than those they pretend to be superior too. Whereas the worshippers of science have their realities and possibilities limited by the bounds of the science they worship, those who accept creation and do not accept science as the supreme authority have a reality and a universe that may be infinite by comparison.
Science is science. And those of us familiar with biological sciences are also familiar with evolutionary biology. Unlike you, we are not prone to be misled by religious stories. Your long rambling irrational argument ignores the real point. There is no known impediment for life to have arisen from a natural process - the parsimonious explanation. This means that involving a supernatural being adds unncessesary complexity (in fact infinite complexity) to a process that does not require it.
Of course not knowing anyting about science, you are confuse big bang theory with evolutionary theory and abiogenesis. They are separated by 8 billion years.
Yes, science is science alright- and history has taught us that science is ever changing. What is thought to be valid today is often altered if not overturned tomorrow. Nature on the other hand remains true while science struglles to understand it. Granted, adherence to strict religious doctrine can result in limited thinking, but acceptance of a creation does not in and of itself imply limited thinking. It could open one's mind up much farther than those who place themselves in a scientific box because scientific evidence is always limited at any given time to the scant knowledge it has accepted as doctrine, and oftentimes even that evidence is later proven to be invalid.
If the big bang was the event that created the natural universe, how did it happen? Something had to be there beforehand to cause the force that created the natural universe, however that creation happened. What was it?
You keep blabbing on about history (meaning your skewed interpretation of history), I am discussing the evidence and science. NOW!
Your weak arguments are eithe about what was, or what you think will be. In the former case, what you believe is not shared by the experts on the field. And in the latter, I will dismiss you outright because you do not possess magical powers of precognition.
And I am discussing the limited knowledge of science NOW. Refusing to accept today's science as having all or even most of the answers is not at all the same as rejecting science. It is you who put yourself into a box by only accepting what today's science has validated, when history has proven that it is inevitable that there will be forces and concepts validated tomorrow which today's science does not understand or accept. And it may be that there will be forces that science can never explain away- but that does not mean they do not exist.
Lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack.
If today's science is so powerful and all knowing, why has it been unable to create even the simplest single cell life form? We are told that life came about as a random event from the chaos of the universe. Surely we should be able to duplicate a mere accident? Instead, it appears we are the monkeys when it comes to creation.
Does life evolve? Sure it does. It adapts and evolves. But is that a mere accident, or was it perhaps designed to be that way?
Once again you resort to the straw man that I see you using everywhere. So again, please point to the scientist claiming to know all the anwers. It's your go-to straw man and a pretty bad one at that. The rampant intellectual dishonesty is unbelievable.
I have never said there was a scientist with all the answers - only that there are those falsely believe science has all or most of the answers and those who worship it as such.
Dude, you ARE the straw man. And your posts have become a waste of time to even look at much less respond to.
I've asked this several times now and you keep dodging the question. Can you provide some legitimate documentation claiming that science has all the answers?
Dude, learn the meaning of straw man, you are not using it correctly.
Scientists aren't claiming to know how life began. However what they can tell you, because of the research, is that various complex organic molecules essential for life can form under natural conditions. These complex molecules have been found in space and near volcanic vents in the ocean. There is also no known reason that prevents life from arising via natural means. In the absence of any supernatural being, the natural explanation seems the most plausible and logical.explanations. There is no Muslim physics or Hindu physics or Christian physics... it's just physics, just chemistry, just biology.
There are a few alt med protocols that have proven efficatious under objective testing, and many more - homephathy - that have been scientifically proven to be useless.