[snarks_when_bored]

We don't know many of the details of how life began on this planet. Dawkins would acknowledge that. But that's no reason to throw up one's hands and say, "Dang, a miracle must've happened here!" And, even if you do that, you've still got the problem of explaining precisely how that miracle happened: What mechanisms did a designer employ to push atoms together to make specific kinds of molecules and then to push these molecules together to make cellular structures? What forces were employed? Why is there zero evidence of such forces being employed nowadays? Etc.

[frgoff]

We don't know many of the details of how life began on this planet.

But we do know the chemical processes required and we know the chemicals required by life require life.

There's a reason smart evolutionists whistle loudly and proclaim the theory doesn't talk about origins of life. The hard, cold, impenetrable wall of physics stands guard there and none may pass.

[grey_whiskers]

We don't know many of the details of how life began on this planet. Dawkins would acknowledge that. But that's no reason to throw up one's hands and say, "Dang, a miracle must've happened here!" And, even if you do that, you've still got the problem of explaining precisely how that miracle happened: What mechanisms did a designer employ to push atoms together to make specific kinds of molecules and then to push these molecules together to make cellular structures? What forces were employed? Why is there zero evidence of such forces being employed nowadays? Etc.

Howzabout, "Geez, we still don't know for sure." ??

Besides, I seem to recall reading on several other crevo threads that the theory of evolution is not intrinsically about abiogenesis.

Or is that only when it's convenient for one side or the other? ;-)

Cheers!