What a silly reply, ...
Then demonstrate that it is silly, don't claim it. You also need to review the guidleines about proper debate.
It pointed out your error in the previous post without making disparaging comments about your level of thinking.
... as you very well know is that NOBODY KNOWS how the earth got here and if you are so clever you tell me.
What we know is based on the evidence of what IS and how we understand HOW it works. The astronomical theories of planet formation are not just shots in the dark.
... of course I am not saying the planet is an assumption ...
You just contradicted yourself. You are now saying that the earth is a fact, yet previously you claimed we couldn't because we didn't know how the chemicals came into being.
But the point is that we don't need to know how something came to be in order to study how it works.
Thus your comment on the origin of the universe is irrelevant to the study of life on earth and how it works, and whether what we know about how it works can be extended back into a study of how it may have started.
The topic is chemical evolution - as we already know that chemicals exist, so we do not need to ponder how they came into being in order to study how chemicals interact in different situations, particularly ones similar to what we know about early earth (from study and evidence) to see if there may be some self organising self-catalizing systems that could develop into life as we know it.
That is what science does: takes evidence, makes a hypothesis to explain the evidence, use the hypothesis to make a prediction, test the prediction for validity, repeat.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2