[microgood]

Americans are more likely to accept information, truthful or not, if that sense is appealed to. In this case the information is false, so appealing to the sense of democracy and free expression is manipulative.

He expressed his opinion that both sides should be taught. That cannot be classified as either true or false. You may disagree with his opinion but you cannot say it is false. In any case, when it comes to manipulative, Huckabee cannot put a candle to the gut that wrote this article.

Is arbitrarily disqualifying alternatives to Biblical creation based on improper interpretation of prior science or on cherry picking information from prior science acceptable behaviour in your world?

Let me guess, your friends call you Snidely Whiplash.

From what I understand, there is no alternative to creation from the origin of life perspective since evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. There is a hypothesis of abiogenesis now but I thought it was the same thing as spontaneous generation because when you search on one you always get both. However, I was corrected by furball4paws and Carolina Guitarman that there is an older version of abiogenesis called Aristotelean abiogenesis and a newer version. I was not trying to slam science, I just did not know people actually still believed life came from non-life after Pasteur. Apparently it still lives in the modern theory of abiogenesis. I do not know how well the theory is supported by evidence, however, so I did not see it as an alternative to creation. I thought it was Creation or we don't know. Since then I have learned about Pasmeria as another alternative

[b_sharp]

"Let me guess, your friends call you Snidely Whiplash.

Only when I'm overly tired and acting like a twit. My apologies.

"From what I understand, there is no alternative to creation from the origin of life perspective since evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. There is a hypothesis of abiogenesis now but I thought it was the same thing as spontaneous generation because when you search on one you always get both. However, I was corrected by furball4paws and Carolina Guitarman that there is an older version of abiogenesis called Aristotelean abiogenesis and a newer version. I was not trying to slam science, I just did not know people actually still believed life came from non-life after Pasteur. Apparently it still lives in the modern theory of abiogenesis. I do not know how well the theory is supported by evidence, however, so I did not see it as an alternative to creation. I thought it was Creation or we don't know. Since then I have learned about Pasmeria as another alternative

I commend your attempt to learn and wish more would take that to heart.

Sheesh, what a bad week. Perhaps I should quite posting for a while, I seem to be making more mistakes than a man has a right to.

[furball4paws]

Current work on Abiogenesis is probably just at the hypothesis level, certainly not yet a theory. There is a lot of work, but a clear picture is not yet available.

Do you see Creation as Abiogenesis?

Panspermia is not a solution, since it just puts off the place of the beginning of life to another world and time.

As I see it, there are only two competing ideas, both Abiogenesis variants:

1. Creation by (a) God.
2. Chemical abiogenesis.

I'm open to other possibilities. I am hoping to see some real progress in chemical abiogenesis in my life time, but you never know.