Replies

At least you are admitting that evolution doesn't pretend to be about the origins of life.

They left it out for the same reason that Newton left out the origin of matter in his descriptions of the motions of matter. It's outside the scope of the theory

But still it leaves out the penultimate question(of who or what created life), and I beleive that is the creationists point, kinda of like the adage "can't see the forest for the trees".

FWIW, I side on the creationist side, they are least being honest in including the question of who or what created life.

"But still it leaves out the penultimate question(of who or what created life), and I beleive that is the creationists point, kinda of like the adage "can't see the forest for the trees"."

Abiogeneis is the theory that is exploring the origins of life. It may never reach a satisfactory conclusion, but at least it is trying to use the methods of science. There is no way to provide evidence for or against the creation of life by God, just as there is no way to prove or disprove God using science. Creationists want it both ways.

" FWIW, I side on the creationist side, they are least being honest in including the question of who or what created life."

For Creationists it is not a question, but an answer. They have to ignore the physical creation in order to make it fit their interpretation of scripture. There is no more dishonesty in evolutionists not trying to bring up the creation of life any more than there is dishonesty in Newton not bringing up the creation of matter in his theory of universal gravity. What is dishonest is claiming that your opponent's theory is weak because they are failing to explain something their theory never attempts to explain.

But still it leaves out the penultimate question(of who or what created life),

And Newtonian physics leave out the question of who/what created matter. The origin of life is an important question in biology, but the origin of life is not a topic addressed by the theory of evolution. Scientific theories have specific scopes, and they are not incomplete or inadequate simply because they leave out issues that are not a part of their scope. Evolution covers the emergence of diversity in populations of biological life forms. That's it. If there are no biological life forms, then evolution cannot occur. The origins of life require, for at least some time, that no biological life exists. As such, evolution cannot address the ultimate origin of life because there is a step when, by definition, evolution cannot occur. Constantly repeating that it does in fact try to address the origin of life only demonstrates that you are willfully ignorant.

There is ongoing research into life origins, but that research will not affect the theory of evolution. Evolution only requires that life exist. How life came to exist in the first place has no bearing whatsover on the theory of evolution. The first life forms could have come about through molecules forming certain specific chemical bonds under the right conditions, they could have been seeded by interdimensional aliens, they could have been zap-poofed into existence by a divine agent or they could have been planted by time travelling humans from the future and evolution would still occur, without change, regardless of how those intial life forms came to be.

If you disagree, and wish to continue insisting that the ultimate origin of life are somehow important to the theory of evolution, please explain exactly how evolution is falsified if it is demonstrated that life did not ultimately come to exist by the specific process that evolution supposedly requires.

FWIW, I side on the creationist side, they are least being honest in including the question of who or what created life.

I'm not surprised that you're a creationist. You have a knack for attacking evolution for something that it is not. It is not an ultimate explanation for the origins of everything, but so many dishonest creationists want to turn it into one because they can't actually attack it for what it really is. Evolution covers a single specific process; demanding that it address more than its scope or be rejected only makes it clear that you're not actually interested in science, but instead interested in turning evolution into something that it isn't because you've already decided to reject it and are just looking for an excuse.