The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Hollie]

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Oh my, the Jehovah's Witness groupies are canvassing the neighborhood.

 

[PostmodernProph]

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

 

[Hollie]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

 

[Taz]

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

 

[Taz]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Any rational person knows that life began when god waved his magic wand.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

 

[Taz]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

You're not even a christian, so what are you?

 

[the_human_being]

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Actually, human being, I don't agree with the idea that reality is about correct theory versus rationality. Whatever is will be what it is in my opinion, and whatever is will be rational. I'm going to ask Rawlings to step in on this abiogenesis thing. He wrote an in-depth article on it for his blog. I had to read it four times before I had a good handle on it. It's hard, cold science, the facts. There's no way abiogenesis is rational or even demonstrable. I hope Rawlings will step in because his expertise on the issue is clear, but here's the link to the article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

So what you are really saying is that at the moment, his is the most rational theory to you therefore you accept it as fact, however should another theory be presented that appears more rational to you in the future, then you would accept that theory as face. OK. Just depends upon which idea is packaged and sold to you as to which you will accept as face.

 

[the_human_being]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Abiogenesis isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis, a very weak hypothesis too. A theory would be something that is held to have been demonstrated. The only reason evolution is regarded to be a theory is because it's the received theory, but abiogenesis is not held to be anything but a hypothesis in science. It's not even close to being a theory.


Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia - What is the origin of life on Earth

Even atheists who understand the situation know this, though this guy irresponsibly uses the word theory . . . at first, but eventually gets to the real truth of the matter: Atheism Proving The Negative Current Theories of Abiogenesis

Even though the author is biased, it's clear that it's just a hypothesis: abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Besides the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands.

The only thing I would caution one to be wary of regarding the author's piece in the Encyclopedia Britannica is that while the falsified spontaneous generation of old and abiogenesis are conceptually distinction, both of them are still the notion that life arose from non-living material. I emphasize that because, as you say, Justin, "the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands." Abiogenesis is not a standard scientific theory. For now, it's an hypothesis and nothing more.

abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Any rational person knows that life began when god waved his magic wand.

Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life might (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids, let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.

Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans' depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.

Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis.

In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out.

And you do realize—don't you?—that equating one of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.

Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these . . . articles of faith handy?




At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!

I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it's just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?

Materialism: thy name is magic.

 

[Hollie]

Any rational person knows that life began when god waved his magic wand.

Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life might (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids, let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.

Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.
Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis!

In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out!

And you do realize--don't you?--that equating one of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.

Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us all how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these propositions handy?




At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!

I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it’s just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?

Materialism: thy name is magic.

Oh gawd. It's a revival meeting. Who brought the snakes?

 

[Hollie]

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Abiogenesis isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis, a very weak hypothesis too. A theory would be something that is held to have been demonstrated. The only reason evolution is regarded to be a theory is because it's the received theory, but abiogenesis is not held to be anything but a hypothesis in science. It's not even close to being a theory.


Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia - What is the origin of life on Earth

Even atheists who understand the situation know this, though this guy irresponsibly uses the word theory . . . at first, but eventually gets to the real truth of the matter: Atheism Proving The Negative Current Theories of Abiogenesis

Even though the author is biased, it's clear that it's just a hypothesis: abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Besides the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands.

The only thing I would caution one to be wary of regarding the author's piece in the Encyclopedia Britannica is that while the falsified spontaneous generation of old and abiogenesis are conceptually distinction, both of them are still the notion that life arose from non-living material. I emphasize that because, as you say, Justin, "the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands." Abiogenesis is not a standard scientific theory. For now, it's an hypothesis and nothing more.

abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

Pretty typical for those lacking any education in the sciences.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

Welcome to Hollie's and Taz's world in which inconvenient scientific facts are articles of scientific ignorance. Most atheists, particularly the sort you run into on forums like this one, are not very well-versed in the actualities of things at all, including the standards and conventions of logic and science.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Oh my, the Jehovah's Witness groupies are canvassing the neighborhood.

Stop with the rumors, Hollie. I'm not a JW, but a Bible-believing, orthodox Christian.

 

[Hollie]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

Welcome to Hollie's and Taz's world in which inconvenient scientific facts are articles of scientific ignorance. Most atheists, particularly the sort you run into on forums like this one, are not very well-versed in the actualities of things at all, including the standards and conventions of logic and science.

Welcome to the conspiratorial world of Rawling.

Most religious zealots are simply "cut and pasters", lacking in any science vocabulary. We'll soon be assaulted with a host of Rawling'isms wherein the boy will rattle on with meaningless banter about his various gawds.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

You're not even a christian, so what are you?

Why would you assume he's not a Christian just because he doesn't necessarily hold to a literal, worldwide Noahic Flood? I don't necessarily hold to that notion either, and I'm a Christian. The term "world" can readily be understood to apply to the continental range of the human race of that time.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

actually no....
Seed Biology and Germination

A seed is a living, respiring organism, despite usually appearing inert or even dead. To remain alive, the embryo must have access to food and oxygen. Eventually if it runs out of food or is subjected to physical damage, including attack by insects or fungi, it will die. If you want the seed to be sown to produce another plant, a dead seed is of no value whatever.
What is a Seed and How Does it Work

You don't believe in the bible or the worldwide flood. What do you care?

well that makes sense.......you don't have to be wrong about whether dead seeds can come back to life, because I don't believe in a world-wide flood.......classic atheist' argument, I believe.....

Welcome to Hollie's and Taz's world in which inconvenient scientific facts are articles of scientific ignorance. Most atheists, particularly the sort you run into on forums like this one, are not very well-versed in the actualities of things at all, including the standards and conventions of logic and science.

Welcome to the conspiratorial world of Rawling.

Most religious zealots are simply "cut and pasters", lacking in any science vocabulary. We'll soon be assaulted with a host of Rawling'isms wherein the boy will rattle on with meaningless banter about his various gawds.

Always so much fun to see you, Hollie, always such a pleasure.

 

[Hollie]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Oh my, the Jehovah's Witness groupies are canvassing the neighborhood.

Stop with the rumors, Hollie. I'm not a JW, but a Bible-believing, orthodox Christian.

Just be honest, you crank. You're an annoying, know-nothing, neighborhood canvassing, JW.

You're the worst of the bunch.