Posted: Apr 13, 2010 12:37 pm
by byofrcs
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:....

No, the same evidence that supports evolution supports abiogenesis too. If we did not find evidence for evolution then I think worrying about evidence for abiogenesis would be the least of our problems.

Wrong, you're making a common mistake of confusing the two.
Abiogenesis and Evolution are not the same, and would not be a result of the same mechamisms.

Please present some fossil evidence of Abiogenesis.

...if you can tell me if viroids are "alive" or not. We assume to know what is alive and we assume to know what is not alive. It's deciding the bit in the middle that needs some cleaning up first.

If you wish to open a thread on the definition of life, then perhaps we can discuss it.

I don't need to as I have my answer. I didn't know if you saw it as on the inanimate, or animate, side of matter. Unless you have a clear definition of what is inanimate then I fail to see how you can ask for fossil evidence of something that you do not know what it looks like to start with.

I do not see a need to differentiate between living and non-living other than as useful pigeon-holes to stick differently structured matter using as many arbitrary properties as we decide. Obviously creationists see a need to differentiate between the two as that is essential to their dogma.

When you are asking for "fossils" then you are asking for something from an undefined grey area of organic chemistry dating somewhere about 3.5 Billion years ago. The onus is on you to first identify which pigeon-hole that you want evidence for.