Why does science always upstage God?

[Huggy Bear]

I notice ignoramus would rather spend time handing out kudos than actually address anything I've asked him, what a coward.

---

You absolutely ARE saying that abiogenisis is how life began IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A CREATOR! So unless you are of the opinion that life has always existed (which again there is no evidence of), then by eliminating the possibility that life had a creator, you accept abiogenesis (life from non-life) by default.

To say abiogenesis is "how life began" doesn't really provide an explanation of how life began.  It merely asserts our confidence that the answer will turn out to be natural, no magic required.

To say 'god' created life says even less.  As with abiogenesis, it provides no clue as to how this god thing created life.  But it asserts that you expect the answer to involve a kind of magic that takes any possibility of an explanation permanently off the table.  It asserts your contentment with never understanding how life began.

So basically you choose to accept abiogenesis even though there's no evidence of it, simply because it falls in line with your ideology...

Aren't you doing the same thing you accuse theists of doing?

---

Sorry man... I'm struggling! with my atheistic mental gymnastics..

I generally don't reply back to theists who try to use science to prove their skydaddy and ignore all the other scientific evidence if it conflicts...
If you can cherry pick, I too, can cherry pick who I reply to...
Be cool!

So basically you have nothing...

I have yet to see ANY conflicting scientific evidence presented in this thread, if you think there is some conflicting scientific evidence then post it.

Funny how I'm supposed to hold the irrational position which I constantly stick my neck out in defense of, but trying to get you to defend your position of so-called logic and reason is like trying to get blood from a turnip.