Replies

There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be. If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.

Huh? The Big Bang (origin of the universe) is perfectly acceptable science. It makes predictions that can be tested (and have been verified) and so it stands up pretty well. As for the coming into existence of the first life, we must first define life. Is it a self-replicating molecule (there are plenty of those). Is it a self-replicating molecule in a particular environment such as a lipid-like bubble as are found in interstellar dust clouds? Are virii living? Or do you consider bacteria to be the simplest living things. As you can see, non-life can shade gradually into that which we consider life; there doesn't seem to be some magic cut-off point with everything on one side being living and everything on the other being non-living.

Huh? The Big Bang (origin of the universe) is perfectly acceptable science.

Fully agreed. Yet is still does not answer the question, where did that speck of incredibly dense stuff come from, and what caused it to explode.

"It just was" is naturalism. "God did it" is theism. Both are faith constructs.