aiki
Regular Member
It is precisely this kind of dismissive and careless attention to the facts that makes your "position" so weak. You don't engage the statements and prove that they are mistaken. Instead, you hide behind silly remarks like "no one takes them seriously" and "I knew it was BS." This isn't persuasive arguing, it is the thinking of a lemming headed for the cliff.
What do secular scientists say about the fact that the amino acids that were formed were not stereochemically pure? What do they say to the fact that the same electrical charge that helped create the amino acids in the Miller-Urey experiment had to be removed before it also destroyed them? What do they say to the criticism that a glass flask in a lab is no where close to the environment in which they say abiogenesis took place? And so on. What I've seen from secular scientists is a refusal to acknowledge the import of these things to the validity of the claims of abiogenesis that they make. THey show the same sort of blind bias that you do, the same unwillingness to look squarely at these issues and address them.
THe link you posted shows the very thing I'm talking about. In the first two paragraphs we find the following phrases:
"...life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps..."
"Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized..."
As these statements admit, none of what they propose is proven and certainly there is no evidence that what these statements declare is even possible. Attempts to show that abiogenesis is possible have all failed. Thus, the ToE requires that the evolutionst accept on blind faith that the "just so" story of abiogenesis did occur.
Selah.
Upvote
0
