Comment to eric stuck in moderation
We've never witnessed a star being born - we conclude how sit did happen from our best understanding of how it could have happened..... eric
Oh, for crying out loud, that again. The only reason we know that stars are "born" and all of those other things happen IS BASED ON THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT IS AVAILABLE TO SCIENCE. The observation of light and other frequencies of radiation from stars IS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. The classification of living organisms into taxa IS BASED ENTIRELY ON THEIR <B> KNOWN, OBSERVED </B> PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS BECAUSE THOSE CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WE HAVE.
The crucial differences for the Origin of Life are 1. that it is a biological event producing an organism. 2. due to the enormous variability of known organisms that can't give you any help in guessing what THAT UNIQUE ORGANISM was like. 3. there is every reason to believe that the first organism was very unlike modern life, if it was similar it would present stupendously difficult problems to explain how something like a modern organism could have come about by random occurrences, which is the reason THAT I DON'T HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THAT IT HAD DNA, RNA OR THE COMPLEX CELLULAR CHEMISTRY OF TODAY'S LIFE (though you folks will ignore that I'm bending over backward in the direction of abiogenesis in that assumption to accuse me of being a creationist ), 3. that whatever else is known about the original organism, it was unlike any of its descendants because it, uniquely, didn't come from another living organism but was originated in a way that has never been seen before, by means that have never been seen before, in nature or anywhere else. And that the way it happened more than three billion years ago IS THE ONE AND ONLY WAY THAT UNKNOWN EVENT HAPPENED.
The trouble is, you folks don't have any respect for what's necessary to know things with any reliability. I'm beginning to think that's typical of atheists. I guess it was my past as an agnostic that lets me see that.