LogFAQs > #976273012

npiguitar posted...

Are they equally unproven? Yes. Are they equally likely? No. If we were to assume for a moment that there is some intelligent creator of life out there, we're basically talking about a deity at this point. Something supernatural, at least.

Is abiogenesis proven? No. Not yet, at least. But matter and energy do exist. We can observe them. We know they're real. Where is a deity? Something supernatural? We've never found good evidence to support the supernatural. Saying that intelligent design is a possibility requires you to make another entire illogical leap into accepting the existence of the supernatural and then assuming it acted a certain way. Abiogenesis only requires you to think that things we know to exist (matter and energy) may act in certain ways we haven't yet observed.

The level of evidence for abiogenesis is about as absurd as the level of evidence for intelligent design. None is better than the other. We need look no further of evidence for intelligent design than ourselves. Go see how DNA is coded in and the core mechanism of genetics. Our cells are literally cities perfectly designed to govern, regulate and replicate themselves.

Such a well-engineered thing is likely no damn result of sheer inorganic randomness.

Also, you've set up a false dichotomy. It's not abiogenesis vs intelligent design. It's abiogenesis vs intelligent design vs any number of other possibilities we may not have even thought of yet. Imagine, 600 years ago, two people discussing sickness.

Except as I said, any other possibility has no basis to them at all to begin with, unlike how abiogensis and intelligent design do.