Why does science always upstage God?

[Brian37]

Which is silly . even if abiogenesis were disproven tomorrow . It does not challenge evolution in the slightest. Also huggy can't seem to tell the difference between accepting a scientifically accepted idea like Abiogenesis in a scientific fashion . And conflating it with his religious fairytales . Oh and asserting somehow he's knocked down a house of cards when he has not even scratched the paint of the reinforced armored bunker that is evolution .

But what implausible about chemistry producing a different form of chemistry. As all life is in fact chemistry.

---

The strongest theoretical justification for Abiogenesis. Is the simple fact the life is made up and sustained by inorganic matter and chemistry. Thus it's wholly reasonable to hypothesize that life  may have emerged from inorganic chemistry through multiple stages . Now were is the evidence we were poofed into existence by a magic incantation from dirt  . 

    

There's one little problem with your theory, it's not falsifiable...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability is the ability of a theory — a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena — to have its falsity demonstrated by overwhelming evidence through experiments or observations.The ability to evaluate theories against observations is essential to the scientific method, and as such, the falsifiability of theories is key to this and is the prime test for whether a proposition or theory can be described as scientific. Put simply, if a theory cannot be falsified, there is no point in even examining the evidence.

Actually you never addressed this . It remains a fact that any population born of only two creatures would suffer massive amounts of genetic defects . Which is why incest is dangerous .

Addressed here in the afore mentioned thread here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-51134-p...pid1644447

Wolves Are Suffering Less From Inbreeding Than Expected

Increasing levels of inbreeding is a threat against the viability of the Scandinavian wolf population. A study just coming out in the new journal PLoS ONE now demonstrates that inbreeding is not affecting the wolves as badly as expected. The results show that it is the most genetically variable wolf individuals that are recruited into the breeding population. An important consequence of this action of natural selection is that the negative effects of inbreeding are accumulating much slower than previously believed.

- The inbreeding coefficient is a measure of the proportion of the DNA that is inbred. It varies between 0 and 100%. If a brother and sister are mating, their offspring will have an inbreeding coefficient of 25%. This is about the average level for the present wolf population in Scandinavia.

As you can see from the above article the AVERAGE wolf is the offspring of wolves who are brother and sister, which means there are wolves even more inbred than that.

---

Nothing at all. Christian fundies claim the one depends on the other, however.

I guess that is just one more thing of which you are unaware.

So then the point is irrelevant since none of you has seen me make any such claim.

You are NOT getting it.

We get the same shit from EVERY damned religion in the world.

When the apologist cannot point to their book, they try to shit on science. When they cant do that, they try to claim to be the inventors of science.

Don't believe me?

FINE, be brave and do the following.

GOOGLE the following.

"Muslim science"


Then

"Jewish science"

Then

"Buddhist science"

Then

"Hindu science"

Every damned religion in the world has apologists whom crap on science or tries to claim ownership of science. NEITHER tactic works because scientific method is COMPLETELY independent of religion.