Belief and Knowledge

[Esquilax]

We have evidence that carbon can form in stars. Is knowledge of nuclear synthesis of carbon knowledge about abiogenesis? It is not. It is knowledge of nuclear synthesis of carbon. Is knowledge of how pre-biotic components can form knowledge of abiogenesis? It is not....it is knowledge of how pre-biotic components can form.

Do you also deny that the combustion engine has anything to do with the construction of cars?

I said already, I acknowledged from the start, that we have confirmation only of the first few steps. Reminding me of that doesn't change the argument; abiogenesis is still the best supported hypothesis for the origins of life. It's where the smart money goes.

I also predicted that you'd attempt to minimize what I said by asserting that we only have the first few steps of the process down, but I think the predictability of theistic responses has a strong enough history that it stands on its own.

The rest of your post is a straw man. I am not arguing that having no knowledge of abiogenesis is a reason to believe in God. I am arguing something completely different. I am arguing that if your basis of rejecting belief in God is a lack of knowledge of God, then you should reject a belief in abiogenesis as well. Why? Because we have 0 knowledge or experience with abiogenesis.

Which is a lie, unless you're willing to come out and say that experiments demonstrating that the building blocks of life can arise by natural processes have nothing to do with the development of life by natural processes. Which would be literally the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.

Personally.....I think it is okay....its not dirty....its not taboo....to believe in somethings of which you have no knowledge. But if your going to criticize me for believing in something which I have no knowledge....don't get butthurt when I point out you are doing the same.

Speaking of strawmen...