Abiogenesis is impossible

[snowtracks]

@snowtracks

I think it's probably more frustration. You know, what with the whole eye thing being debunked. And yet creationists keep bringing it up over and over again. There's only so many times a person can explain before their patience wears out.

Since you possess a creationist world view, perhaps you could answer a question for me. Why do creationists think that biology is like lego?

brought up the eye, the optic nerve, the brain - the reason for the 3 is that they can't exist singularly: for instance the brain setting there pulsating by itself with thoughts, one being - would be good to see what's around here. it's all or nothing simultaneously for biosystem that are interconnected.

---

The only reason I mention that is because 99%* of all creationist arguments are attempts to tear down evolutionary theory. Unfortunately after that, they have nothing. If science discovered that evolutionary theory was completely false, we'd be looking for an alternative theory to replace it with, not "Goddidit."


*The other 1% is argument from design, which still doesn't prove that the Judeo-Christian God exists and is the creator of the entire universe.

what about looking at it this way hypothetically: if God exist, the other things makes sense.

---

OK, Snowtracks, let's say for the sake of argument that you, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and all other creationists proved that evolution was false.

The thing is, we don't even have to stipulate that. If theists could produce god, then everything else simply falls into place. Trying to figure out if evolution is true or if the universe "came from nothing" would be superfluous if we knew without a doubt that there is a god. "What if they prove evolution false" doesn't advance the discussion, because they don't have to do that in order to "prove god true." You would think it would be easier to do the latter in any case. It would seem to be the simplest and most effective path.

The fbi profiler methodology which was started by john douglas is that they look at the evidence and work backwards for the identity. seems like a reasonable approach to be used here.