Abiogenesis is impossible

[Lemonvariable72]

Holy shit this thread is still going? didnt did savedbyshitfromfacts get banned three weeks ago?

[Esquilax]

this one seems angry about something.

Ah shit, now you done fucked up.

You wanna know why I was angry? It's because of the utter confidence with which you posted, when the entirety of your post just showed, glaringly, that you hadn't bothered to spend even a single second looking at what mainstream science has to say about the eye and its evolution before you decided you were knowledgeable enough to deride the theory. It's just emblematic of the utter, banal arrogance of creationists, who feel like education is second to simply believing something hard enough.

You bitch about responses of substance, yet you won't even bother to go and research the substantive body of evidence and study on this topic? That's what pisses me off, you ignorant tool.

since i posted, haven't really seen any cogent rebuttal argument from the atheist who like portray themselves as the 'intellectual ones'.

That's because the actual science that backs us to the hilt is plenty rebuttal. In fact, I listed, in brief, a few of the stages of ocular evolution in the post you quoted. What's your excuse now?

must be something to what i posted since it's appear "she's protesting too much". beginning to think, must be a philosophy that's being protected since no one is stepping forward to explain how those busy little molecules, like bees buzzing around, just want to seek and achieve greater complexity.

Who says anything about complexity? Life forms lose things via evolution just as often as they gain them. This is true of humans, too; our appendix had some use in the past, and look at it now. Our little toes used to be load bearing toes in the past, now they carry no weight at all. Whales evolved from land animals that returned to the sea, if you're categorizing all of this on some kind of ladder.

Tell you what, snowy: why don't you let us in on your process, here? Why not tell us of the hours of study into evolution that you've done, in order to discover so many holes in it? I mean, obviously you wouldn't be so shitfaced arrogant to decide something is wrong without actually knowing what it is, would you?

Please, tell us the mainstream, peer reviewed scientific texts you studied to come to your conclusions! Show us the sources that claim that all of evolution is a march toward complexity exclusively. Let us see the scientists that are baffled by the evolution of the eye.

You must have them, right?

[Ryantology]

Molecules want to form complex structures now? They possess desire? Man, talk about the free will implications.

[Brakeman]

so we have this situation: naturalism is propounding the idea that without a blueprint, that the eye was assembled, likewise the brain; each assembled independent of the other. then the idea came up - that it would be good to connect them with an optic nerve. then some backing and filling took place to get the focus correct. in the meantime, it was decided that chemicals and blood would be needed to supply the energy and that was hook-up.

Ignoring the asinine babble, It appears that you are purporting that atoms and their sub-atomic particle children are members of churches called molecules who pray and move to god's wishes. These tiny little churches are what makes up the developed organs of man.

Oh yes, that is a much better argument that all of that chemical attraction thingy. Who says you can't learn advanced sciences in church?

[Faith No More]

since i posted, haven't really seen any cogent rebuttal argument from the atheist who like portray themselves as the 'intellectual ones'. have some dawkins (do the evolutionist genuflect every time his name is mentioned?) , squid eyes, and ranting but beyond that, not anything of substance.
must be something to what i posted since it's appear "she's protesting too much". beginning to think, must be a philosophy that's being protected since no one is stepping forward to explain how those busy little molecules, like bees buzzing around, just want to seek and achieve greater complexity.

Personally, I have wasted too much time and effort on people such as yourself that feel as if they are challenging science when, in fact, they are merely demonstrating their ignorance of said science.

If you think that people feel the need to protect their philosophy from your "challenges," you're even more deluded than you first appear.

[Doubting Thomas]

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.

Explain, in detail, the mechanics of how God created the universe from nothing and then created all life on earth. Invoking magic will not be a valid explanation, since you have to explain how that magic works. And bible quotes will also not be considered, because they just say it happened but don't explain how. If creationism is valid then creation scientists ought to be able to explain how God did it.

[Cyberman]

Plus, that explanation ought to advance our knowledge of the nature of reality and lead to further scientific understanding. Using it as the basis for technology that works will boost its credibility through the roof.

[Zazzy]

have some dawkins (do the evolutionist genuflect every time his name is mentioned?) ,

No, no! We sacrifice babies in His name! Oh, Great Dawkins, make us more complex! And then there's the orgy. Good times!

Creationists who bring up Dawkins give me a kick, because it means he is the only evolutionary biologist they know of. And they usually haven't read anything by Dawkins or anybody else (with the exception of Statler Waldorf- that guy is growing on me).

[Jackalope]

(with the exception of Statler Waldorf- that guy is growing on me).

You've discovered a new species of fungus!

[Faith No More]

(with the exception of Statler Waldorf- that guy is growing on me).

You've discovered a new species of fungus!

I was going to make a tumor joke, but fungus will do.