M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
- May 26, 2011
- 4,123
- 931
Evolution is a FACT
God is a theory
Yeah, well, evolution cannot and does account for origin, and the more we learn the less convincing Abiogenesis becomes--except for the ignorant/confused and the true-believing scientists who just can't let it go.
Evolution or a process akin to it is an apparent fact assuming the ontology of the materialistic naturalist is correct. If it's not, all bets are off.
I believe them both to be the myths . . . of "modern education."
That's bullshit! Modern chemists and biologists are making new discoveries in to the chemical roots to the tree of life every day and they're very excited about their fields - just watch PBS for a month and you too will see!
I didn't say they weren't excited about their work or were not making new discoveries. I said, essentially. . . .
You don't have the faintest clue.
Evolution cannot account for origin. Period. The very idea is unscientific.
And abiogenises is not getting anywhere near origin. You don't know the science. I do. I also understand the difference between metaphysical naturalism and mechanistic naturalism. You don't.
In the meantime your opinion is of no import to me or to the abiogentic researcher scientists who know we are light-years away from explaining origins via chemical evolution.
It's not even close. Even Miller toward the end of his life acknowledged that.
Bioengineering is not abiogenic generation, Sir, which is the only thing you could be talking about beyond the presuppositions of a metaphysical naturalism in this regard.
Refute this with something more than an obscenity and an obscure reference to a PBS program: Prukrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism
My work is predicated on the current science and the work of the leading lights of abiogenic research.
I seriously doubt you understand much of anything about the matter. The fact that you misunderstood the nature of my observation demonstrates that.
Last edited: