Which totally and conclusively proves your origin theory FALSE.
Why?
Which totally and conclusively proves your origin theory FALSE.
Why?
Because it is quite well studied scientifically and confirmed that life does not naturally come into being via physics and chemistry.
400 years ago, if you had said that the Earth revolves around the sun, the Church would have tried you for heresy. If found guilty, you would have been subject to the death penalty.
And today, the "church" is Darwinist.
Citation to the scientific literature please.
RD see post #142, you made a specific claim. I asked you to support it with a citation (or more if you wish) to the scientific literature. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I'll wait.
Ah RD the ball is in your court. You made a
very specific claim. You stated "It is quite well studied scientifically and confirmed that life does not naturally come into being via physics and chemistry"
I took that to mean you were aware of such scientific studies and their confirmation. I asked for references to those studies and confirmation. Should have been easy-peasy.
And now? Buppkus. Color me surprised.
Ah but you know I shouldn't be since I still wait that list of documents from Stripe to investigate/analyze Jesus resurrection
"Uncontroversial" and yet NO CLUE as to how it "might happen".Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]
Oh dear RD, neither wiki nor AiG are citations to the scientific literature.
Even your wiki reference does not support your claim in post 142. Saying "well, we aren't sure" is not confirming that life did not come into being via physics and chemistry.
I am.
I don't worship scientific literature but that is what you should look at for good accurate science
The original topic, from the first post, was by one of the
more irrational ToLers. She seemed to be beating around the edges of the hydroplate theory. If you want to use that particular bit of fantasy just shoot me now.
At some point we went to a discussion of whether science dealt with immaterial and/or supernatural things. At some point I suggested your brain worked by chemistry and physics. You claimed that was random and when you eventually agreed that chemistry was not random you stated on my "origin story".
so not really sure there ever was a consistent topic
Good accurate science does NOT require any priesthood of literature.
What is the origin of radioactive isotopes on the earth?
What does it require in terms of literature or other information available to other scientists?
I dont know, it may depend on the particular isotope. Suggest to head to your local university and see if someone there can help you.