<p>Let me rephrase it:</p>
<p>Among the groups of these four views, scientists with view number 1 who ruled out a creator are in a MINORITY group. </p>
<p>And a conclusion:
There is NO evidence to support that life on earth happened through a totally natural evolution on earth.</p>
<p>(Sorry I expressed I was writing in my third language and grammar mistakes happened quite often that I need to ask all to excuse me for these mistakes or correct me. 
Thanks.)</p>
<p>@Findmoreinfo Dude I literally have no idea what you’re saying. Speak in your native language, I bet even Google Translate can translate better.</p>
<p>^It was an answer to post #180. And a rephrase of the conclusion in post #179. I bet it has been too long since the two posts. (I didn’t expect my post today to be on a new page. Should have a ‘^’ sign there.)</p>
<p>Find more info,</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Scientists do not usually rule out anything. Anything is possible, but some things are very unlikely. Scientists can’t “rule out” Santa or the Easter Bunny. That does not mean they are likely to exist.</p></li>
<li><p>Abiogenesis and evolution are different. Evolution deals with how the diversity of life on this planet came to exist, once the first replicators came into existence. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Abiogenesis studies how those first replicators may have come into existence. This is not part of the theory of evolution.</p>
<p>"Abiogenesis studies how those first replicators may have come into existence. This is not part of the theory of evolution. "</p>
<p>Good that you realized it, as I already pointed it out in post #159. I saw lots of people buy into the imagined from-the-beginning-to-man evolution while there is no evidence for it at all.</p>