This forum has a very useful feature that tells readers how many times a link has been clicked on. It’s currently showing that only one person has clicked on only one of the five links I provided. Which means that you have not read the articles linked to, so cannot you possibly know whether they say abiogenesis is a theory.
I’ve seen plenty of creationists squander their credibility, but it’s not usually the forum software that is their undoing.
That’s because I just did a Google search on my own and clicked on those links I didn’t have to click on you the links you provided so sorry false assessment on your part again. Also I did do a reading that’s how I know they all said Theory and none of them say scientific fact thank you.
You can slam-dunk your argument by providing citations. Is that a problem?
It is if the citations don’t support his point.
Incidentally, the remaining links on the first page of the Google search are similar to the first five:
A summary of abiogenesis refers to planetary accretion theory, the primordial soup hypothesis and quantum superposition. It says there are countless theories about how life came about, but doesn’t say it’s a theory that it did.
Merriam-Webster describes abiogenesis as a theory.
A paper on treatment of abiogenesis in school refers often to evolutionary theory, but says abiogenesis is not part of it and never describes abiogenesis itself as theory.
A paper on cellularity refers to cell theory, various protoplasmic theories, Kaufman’s autocatalytic set theory, a theory of ribozyme replication, progenote theory, a theory regarding speed of variation vs reproduction, computing theory and a yet-devised general theory of biology - but never to abiogenesis as a theory.
There are lots of theories about abiogenesis, but abiogenesis is a process, not a theory.
Oh, and one of the comments on the first article says that “Abiogenesis is a great fact.”
@logosoflogic won’t provide citations because they’d disprove his false claim.
For some reason I always thought CCR wrote that song but it’s actually 3 dog night
Thanks for your diligence. And I wonder why LogosOfLogic thinks that insisting on describing the process of abiogenesis as a theory achieves anything. If we were to agree for the sake of argument that some people sometimes refer to a theory of abiogenesis, we then ask the next obvious question. Then, pray, LogosOfLogic, please tell us what that theory claims.
You do realize that is from a comment section. Literally it would be the definition of a subjective normative opinion. Even though it contains the word fact does not make it factual. It is not an actual objective statement of fact.
CCR didn’t write any songs. John Fogerty did. I don’t think 3 Dog Night wrote any songs, and I suspect none of their members did either.
Yes. That’s why I said it was from “one of the comments”.
Do you even read what you are replying to?
Nor was your claim that "every single provided link in a Google search States that abiogenesis is a theory not a fact".
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.