Best of luck in your career. (If somebody paid you a bucket of money to work on abiogenesis, would you really turn it down? )
I mentioned the Steves who are biologists and accept evolution. Their names are available online. I don't recall you naming anybody who agrees with you.
Thanks... No I still wouldn't, wasn't I just saying how abiogenesis is a waste of money.... and here you are suggesting people throw money at the problem....
And as I said claiming "we have more people" is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum... (You don't read my replies do you?).. Just to re-iterate it is a proven logical fallacy, continuing to claim it doesn't make it more right, it only makes you look more silly since you continue to use a false argument even after being shown (multiple times) how it is false.
Explain the difference.
Suppose all of your criteria were met except that there was human intervention but the biochemists were "still working" on eliminating that?
You are honestly asking me to explain the difference between flight and abiogenesis.....
- flight is observed
- flight can be empirically tested
- flight fits within the laws of nature and the characteristics of reality we observe
- flight is proven via demonstration
-etc etc etc etc
Why ask such a silly question?
Firstly you are dealing with hypotheticals, secondly human intervention merely demonstrates the requirement of intelligence. The "science is working on it" excuse is an argument to future evidence, (yet another logical fallacy), you can see my thread about Dawkins use of the phrase and how he is being unscientific and appeals to faith each time he claims it.http://evolutionfair...?showtopic=4926
Furthermore I ask you to re-read what I have already wrote on your use of this logical fallacy, since it seems that you continue to "forget" my posts and how they demonstrate where you err. Continued use of logical fallacies will only make you look silly.