[Anti-MSM]

The question is not relevant to the theory. Abiogenesis is the theory that deals with the origins of life. They are separate fields.

Of course it's not, because the theory is disproven once you go back to the first living organism. It's hard to explain how the first living organism evolved from nothing.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Of course it's not, because the theory is disproven once you go back to the first living organism."

Horse manure. How is evolution disproved by going back to the first organism?

" It's hard to explain how the first living organism evolved from nothing."

Nobody has said that the first organism came from *nothing*.

[narby]

Of course it's not, because the theory is disproven once you go back to the first living organism.

Evolution occured, as demonstrated by massive amounts of evidence, irregardless of how the first life arose.

You can believe that God placed the first life here, whatever you want. But after that, the evidence says that evolution is how the species, including man, came to be.

Many religious people think that evolution was God tool. I'd suggest you think along those lines, because the evidence we find in Gods creation tells us that.

[SeeAllSides]

>>>The question is not relevant to the theory. Abiogenesis is the theory that deals with the origins of life. They are separate fields.<<<

>>>>Of course it's not, because the theory is disproven once you go back to the first living organism. It's hard to explain how the first living organism evolved from nothing.<<<<

This is where you keep getting tripped up - - the first living organism was formed (however that may have happened - which is NOT what we are discussing), THEN it started to evolve. The THEORY part comes in when trying to show what circumstances moved the evolution process along.