The facts behind the myth of abiogenesis

[M.D. Rawlings]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[edthecynic]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks.

That will surely win over the Atheists!

Obviously your little rant is for persuading believers, not Atheists.

 

[WinterBorn]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

"...most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design."

Since there is zero scientific evidence for any deity, which would have caused or designed life, there is no allowance given for it. Offer some proof, of a scientific nature, and I am sure scientists will make allowances.
You demand that scientists allow for the effect of something that you cannot show the slightest evidence exists.

 

[edthecynic]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

"...most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design."

Since there is zero scientific evidence for any deity, which would have caused or designed life, there is no allowance given for it. Offer some proof, of a scientific nature, and I am sure scientists will make allowances.
You demand that scientists allow for the effect of something that you cannot show the slightest evidence exists.

Well, who do you think wrote the bible? What more proof than that do you need? Prove that God didn't write the bible or accept the existence of God, they will say.

 

[Moonglow]

I have enjoyed making love to atheist women, but they still scream My God!!

 

[jillian]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

"...most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design."

Since there is zero scientific evidence for any deity, which would have caused or designed life, there is no allowance given for it. Offer some proof, of a scientific nature, and I am sure scientists will make allowances.
You demand that scientists allow for the effect of something that you cannot show the slightest evidence exists.

Well, who do you think wrote the bible? What more proof than that do you need? Prove that God didn't write the bible or accept the existence of God, they will say.

How the Council of Nicea Changed the World | LiveScience

 

[Moonglow]

"...most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design."

Since there is zero scientific evidence for any deity, which would have caused or designed life, there is no allowance given for it. Offer some proof, of a scientific nature, and I am sure scientists will make allowances.
You demand that scientists allow for the effect of something that you cannot show the slightest evidence exists.

Well, who do you think wrote the bible? What more proof than that do you need? Prove that God didn't write the bible or accept the existence of God, they will say.

How the Council of Nicea Changed the World | LiveScience

You left out the part where the Roman Catholics went around killing off Christian sects that did not agree with them....

 

[ScienceRocks]

Science explains everything without a god. There's prove for science, while no prove for god...Common sense dictates that science is right!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks.

That will surely win over the Atheists!

Obviously your little rant is for persuading believers, not Atheists.

Obviously, my interest in this instance is to expose the ignorance and arrogance of atheists, not win atheists over. . . .

My little rant? That's the introduction to a rather involved work . . . exposing the ignorance and arrogance of atheists.

It's intended to arm the creationist concerning the illusions of materialism, the religion of atheists, and that faith's doctrine of metaphysical naturalism.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Science explains everything without a god. There's prove for science, while no prove for god...Common sense dictates that science is right!

Oh?

Well, now, let's sweep that silly notion aside. . . .

Prufrock's Lair: A Mountain of Nothin' out of Somethin' or Another

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ater-to-wine-is-a-metaphor-3.html#post8707561

Prufrock's Lair: Does intelligent design provide a plausible account of life?s origins?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

"...most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design."

Since there is zero scientific evidence for any deity, which would have caused or designed life, there is no allowance given for it. Offer some proof, of a scientific nature, and I am sure scientists will make allowances.
You demand that scientists allow for the effect of something that you cannot show the slightest evidence exists.

Nonsense, the empirical evidence screams God's existence, i.e., that the eternal, self-subsistent uncaused caused of all other things is sentient and immaterial. The greatest minds have always understood that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

"...most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design."

Since there is zero scientific evidence for any deity, which would have caused or designed life, there is no allowance given for it. Offer some proof, of a scientific nature, and I am sure scientists will make allowances.
You demand that scientists allow for the effect of something that you cannot show the slightest evidence exists.

Nonsense, the empirical evidence screams God's existence, i.e., that the eternal, self-subsistent uncaused caused of all other things is sentient and immaterial. The greatest minds have always understood that.

Absolute nonsense. If you are suggesting that science accept (and even promote) the idea that an unknown deity caused/designed life, then there must be some evidence of the existence of that deity. Otherwise there is just an unknown mechanism.

And no, the empirical evidence does NOT scream God's existence. There are, obviously, things we have not yet discovered or that we cannot explain. To suggest that all of those are evidence of the existence of God is ridiculous. Your posts are the modern equivalent of suggesting the sun moves around the earth.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"...most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design."

Since there is zero scientific evidence for any deity, which would have caused or designed life, there is no allowance given for it. Offer some proof, of a scientific nature, and I am sure scientists will make allowances.
You demand that scientists allow for the effect of something that you cannot show the slightest evidence exists.

Nonsense, the empirical evidence screams God's existence, i.e., that the eternal, self-subsistent uncaused caused of all other things is sentient and immaterial. The greatest minds have always understood that.

Absolute nonsense. If you are suggesting that science accept (and even promote) the idea that an unknown deity caused/designed life, then there must be some evidence of the existence of that deity. Otherwise there is just an unknown mechanism.

And no, the empirical evidence does NOT scream God's existence. There are, obviously, things we have not yet discovered or that we cannot explain. To suggest that all of those are evidence of the existence of God is ridiculous. Your posts are the modern equivalent of suggesting the sun moves around the earth.

Absolute nonsense, back at you. I suggested no such stupid thing, that is to say, insofar as you comprehend the matter, given your risibly stupid, incoherent baby talk.

The limitations of science are profoundly obvious. It can neither affirm nor falsify the substance of things beyond the material realm of being. That's what you actually meant, right? It can't even affirm its own presupposition as the latter is metaphysical.

But as we shall soon see below, once all the smoke and mirrors of your unwitting folly are demolished, that's not what you said at all.

To assert that the empirical evidence, as well as the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, by the way, support and/or point to the existence of an immaterial and sentient uncaused cause, the self-subsistent and, therefore, eternally existent origin of all other things, is not anything even remotely like saying that science can affirm or falsify that which is immaterial.

The only one confounding the nature and methodology of science here is you!

Empirical evidence and logic, in and of themselves, YOU BRAYING JACKASS, are not science, which is what you actually argued in your foolish and clumsy attempt to misrepresent my observation. If what you imply were true (your idiocy which confounds the distinction between epistemology and ontology), there would be no grounds for supposing or falsifying anything, whether it be material or immaterial, but no doubt that fact of reality flies right over your head.

Evidence doesn't interpret itself. Sentience does.

Idiot.

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. It's not even close.

Now tell us, Dorothy, what is the empirical evidence for the metaphysical constructs of materialism and ontological naturalism?

*crickets chirping*

You talk to me, you had better pay attention, infant. You had better read who you're up against before you open your piehole again. I'll embarrass you every time you think to instruct me on matters of science, the philosophy of science, philosophy in general, logic or theology.

You're strictly a second-rater, a clueless twit, an unexamined life.

You are refuted.

And once again: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ater-to-wine-is-a-metaphor-3.html#post8707561

 

[PostmodernProph]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

"...most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design."

Since there is zero scientific evidence for any deity, which would have caused or designed life, there is no allowance given for it. Offer some proof, of a scientific nature, and I am sure scientists will make allowances.
You demand that scientists allow for the effect of something that you cannot show the slightest evidence exists.

what scientific evidence exists to support the idea of abiogenesis?....are creation and abiogenesis simply competing non-falsifiable ideas?.....

 

[jillian]

Well, who do you think wrote the bible? What more proof than that do you need? Prove that God didn't write the bible or accept the existence of God, they will say.

How the Council of Nicea Changed the World | LiveScience

You left out the part where the Roman Catholics went around killing off Christian sects that did not agree with them....

he didn't ask about that

 

[Steven_R]

Some Bible-Banging blogger who isn't a biologist wrote something that he may or may not be qualified to understand? Well, shit. Might as well shut down every biology department.

 

[DriftingSand]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks. They are either breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or are unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion about the tenets of their religion: namely, abiogenesis and evolution. While science's historical presupposition is not a metaphysical naturalism (or an ontological naturalism), most of today's practicing scientists insist that the origins and compositions of empirical phenomena must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of intelligent causation and design. The limits of scientific inquiry are thereby reconfigured as if they constituted the limits of reality itself, the more expansive potentialities of human consciousness be damned. In other words, if something cannot be quantified by science, it doesn't exist, regardless of the conclusions that any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend. Hence, should one reject what is nothing more than the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science.

Ultimately, the essence of this perversion is a Darwinian naturalism run amok: mere theory elevated to an inviolable absolute of cosmological proportions, which displaces not only the traditional conventions of methodological naturalism (or mechanistic naturalism), but is superimposed on the discipline of science itself. Never has so much been owed to so little.

I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory, inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow the unassailable. God stands and stays: science can neither prove nor disprove His existence; it's not equipped to venture beyond the temporal realm. But this does not mean that the empirical data do not testify to His existence. Science is a contingent source of wisdom, not the beginning and the end of it. And science in the hands of materialists is the stuff of fairytales.

Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Good post!

The bottom line: It takes pure FAITH to believe that "billions" of years ago everything was created by nothingness as a result of a chaotic "big bang" or that a living organism just **popped** into existence by pure chance. That hypothesis/theory is 100% pure conjecture based on totally inconclusive and scant evidence.

It makes far more sense to believe that complex designs were created by and intelligent Designer than to believe that all that we see came to exist by pure mistake.

The proponents of abiogenesis would have us believe that it's possible for a tornado to blast through a junkyard resulting in the creation of a 777 jet. But anyone with even a partially functioning brain can plainly see that the intricate design of a 777 MUST be the result of an intelligent designer.

 

[edthecynic]

Prufrock's Lair
Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks.

That will surely win over the Atheists!

Obviously your little rant is for persuading believers, not Atheists.

Obviously, my interest in this instance is to expose the ignorance and arrogance of atheists, not win atheists over. . . .

My little rant? That's the introduction to a rather involved work . . . exposing the ignorance and arrogance of atheists.

It's intended to arm the creationist concerning the illusions of materialism, the religion of atheists, and that faith's doctrine of metaphysical naturalism.

Yourself!

 

[edthecynic]

The bottom line: It takes pure FAITH to believe that "billions" of years ago everything was created by nothingness as a result of a chaotic "big bang" or that a living organism just **popped** into existence by pure chance. That hypothesis/theory is 100% pure conjecture based on totally inconclusive and scant evidence.

It makes far more sense to believe that complex designs were created by and intelligent Designer than to believe that all that we see came to exist by pure mistake.

The proponents of abiogenesis would have us believe that it's possible for a tornado to blast through a junkyard resulting in the creation of a 777 jet. But anyone with even a partially functioning brain can plainly see that the intricate design of a 777 MUST be the result of an intelligent designer.

When you have to misrepresent science to disprove it, you subconsciously admit you really believe science is on the right track and your religion is not.
Thank you.

 

[Steven_R]

it saddens me just how proud of being ignorant people are when it comes to math and science. Ask someone if they can read or write and if they can't it's a source of shame. Ask someone if they can do a quadratic equation or understand what f=ma means and they are almost proud to tell you they don't know and never will.

I understand math and science are hard, require work, and have the power to threaten long held beliefs, but to revel in ignorance as though it is a badge of honor is just something I can't wrap my head around.