As I was saying
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2015
- 1,258
- 200
- 83
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I seriously doubt that. If you can't provide a link all you have is an unsupported allegation. Hitchens was a very well educated man and knew the difference between the age of the universe and the age of the Earth. You on the other hand do not seem to have that understanding.
Again, you made the claim. When challenged the burden of proof if upon you. If you can't find support fro your claim the wise thing to do is to admit your error and no longer make the claim.
Actually you spewed all sorts of nonsense. Now as to how did life begin that is a problem that is still being worked on. It is far from a simple question. But the origin of life does not bear on the evolution debate. It is simply a shifting of the goal posts. Regardless of the source of life, whether natural, poofed into existence magically by a god, or the result of ET doing a drive by we know that once life was here that it evolved.
I am getting a distinct impression that the evidence you talk about is evidence according to subduction zone. perhaps you can give some advice how I provide evidence for a TV programme I was watching and heard the man say what I said he said other than I was watching the programme and heard him say it?
Likewise, what evidence do you require that I read the secular media's reporting of the Atheist World Conference and they reported what what he said in print?
if the truth were known, you are calling me a liar becuase you have NO evidence to refute my evidence.
How did life begin is not a problem to me and millions of other christians and many scientists as it has been well examined and presented in all sorts of forums. It is only a problem to you because you don't know the answer or don't want to admit what the answer is because it doesn't fit your Godless take on life. As for "Once life was here we know that it evolved." if that is the case, where is your evidence? (not speculation).
If abiogenesis has nothing at all to do with the debate, why are you claiming it as the way life began?
FYI a few quotes...
Abiogenesis is the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
The belief in abiogenesis or spontaneous generation, as now taking place, has completely disappeared from biological
teaching.
Also called autogenesis. the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from non living matter
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.
I have a few thousand more but that will do for now.
Upvote
0