Bill
remember , your the one who started this by claiming that
it is obvious that life developed on its own so don't get upset.
ie...
Since it is obvious that life can develop then I see no reason to suppose that it would only happen once.
For anything to become a scientific belief it must be, at least in principle, repeatable
has science repeated the development of life from non life?
ie.. have scientist ever created anything living from non life.
if not then your claim ( it is obvious that life can develop ) is incorrect.
it has not been repeated , not even in principle so
according to your requirements of what a scientific belief
would be , the development of life is not a scientific belief.
any answer such as it could have developed on its
own or maybe it did develop or if certain circumstances
and conditions were present and were correct it could
have happened will not be perceived by me as a scientific
fact but as a belief only , nothing more than a speculation
and a speculation certainly is not a scientific fact.
ie...
This is the only response I am going to make to Paul on this thread. He is arguing from the point of a religious belief, not a scientific fact.
which is exactly what I was saying in the other thread when
I said the following.
and you would be arguing on a point that is not a belief?
because it certainly has not been proven to be a
"scientific fact" that life developed on its own.
it is not a scientific fact that life developed.
not even in principle.
science does not know nor do they even have the slightest
clue as to how life could have developed.
it is not obvious that life can develop.
you may have missed it , but the cosmos series says
that science does not know how life developed.
therefore its obviously obvious that its not obvious that life developed.
