Perhaps your starting assumptions are wrong. You start with the belief that evolution is fact and that life arose from non-life here on Earth. Logically following would be that life spontaneously popped up elsewhere in the universe.
Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe. Why is it that when the evidence contradicts the theory it’s not the theory that changes?
Abiogensis and evolution are two entirely different disciplines.
True but you can’t have one with out the other. If one were to be disproven the other would be disproven as well.
Have you ever taken chemistry or physics in high school?
Yes actually I took 2 physics and 2 chemistry courses in high school along with several physics and chemistry courses in college, where I earned a BS in Aerospace Engineering. Please, it’s not necessary to insult my intelligence to prove your point. That’s a logical fallacy known as argument ad hominem. That’s like saying you’re wrong because you smell bad.
you want to claim that the entire universe is void of life except for Earth?
I didn’t claim that, but to date there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Are you saying that even though there is no evidence to support your belief, that there is life elsewhere in the universe? For lack of a better word are you saying you have “faith” in aliens?
Let me guess, your next step is to want to claim that god created the universe in 6 days, correct?
Actually He did, but not because I say He did. He says He did in His word, the Bible. You should check it out sometime. It's a pretty good book and it's the all time best seller.
Transitionals and the Trex tissue are both OFF TOPIC in this thread. DO NOT RESPOND! (or you'll get a break)
What theory has been invalidated by the failure to observe life on (a) the moon (to keep this vaguely on topic) and (b) elsewhere?
You’re right this may be an entirely new topic in itself. In this particular example the theory is that life accidentally came from non-life here on Earth. If that were true, it would be logically consistent to believe that life came from non-life elsewhere. The evidence to date shows that there is no life elsewhere in the universe.
You’ll have to forgive me for going off topic, but another example of the evidence not changing the theory is transitional forms. Charles Darwin believed that simpler life forms evolved into more complex life forms gradually over millions of years. He also believed that the fossil record would show this. To date there are only a handful of disputed transitional forms and every day more of those are shown to either be extinct species or hoaxes. Mainstream science looking at this evidence would never say perhaps evolution is false. Instead the mechanism for evolutionary theory becomes punctuated equilibrium not because of evidence, but because of a lack of evidence.
Another off topic example is Tyrannosaurus Rex soft tissue. MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Page not found | NC State News The uniformitarian geological timescale tells us that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, but it’s hard to believe soft tissue could last through the process of fossilization, much less last 65 million years! (and before you call me out on this I realize that abiogenesis, biological evolution, and geology are all separate disciplines, but they’re all inter-related and necessary for the entire evolutionary theory) Rather than changing the geological timescale it’s the process of fossilization that is changed. I don’t know about you, but I can’t seem to keep leftovers in the fridge for more than 2 weeks, and that’s in a favorable environment!Top