I agree. And you research's purpose would be what?
You are confused about what is and is not “scientific.”
Maybe. However, I have not claimed that evolution covers the origin of life (it cannot), as it appears you do. So maybe we are both on shaky ground.
For starters, we use it to get people like you to quit regurgitating nonsense. That alone would make it all worthwhile.
You have, for perhaps the 6th time, failed to answer that simple question (with any meaningful answer), and managed to become insulting as well. I'd ask why, but I suspect I will get more insults. Let's just agree you've won the argument with a saavy, ad-hominem retro-grade approach.
Your hostility to “theoretical,” as opposed to “applied” science still mystifies me.
You only need to propose a purpose behind your hypothesis.
“You have, for perhaps the 6th time, failed to answer that simple question (with any meaningful answer), and managed to become insulting as well. I’d ask why, but I suspect I will get more insults. Let’s just agree you’ve won the argument with a saavy, ad-hominem retro-grade approach.”
You’re asking what the benefit is of scientific inquiry that has no practical benefit. First of all, scientific research is done all the time for the sake of pure knowledge with no anticipated practical benefit. When physicists study gravity, do you think they imagine that they will produce an anti-gravity machine? Of course not. When cosmologists study the big bang, do you think they have a practical application in mind? If so, they must be smoking some pretty strong stuff!
As for the insults, I’m just a jerk. That’s what my wife says, anyway. I usually try not to be one, but the tricks used by evolutionists and their hostility to ID really annoy me. I’ll work on it though.