Replies

You say that abiogenesis is not assumption?

Correct.

Then, later on you admit that it IS assumption, through use of something of a strawman argument;

Uhm, no. Not having witnessed something does not mean that it is assumed.

Granted this concept is alien to creationists, but you can use things like reason, logic and experience to draw conclusions about things you haven't seen.

For instance you can drive around a curve to see skid marks on the road and another car wrapped around a tree, smoke and steam coming from the engine.

One can reasonably conclude from those facts that the car missed the curve and hit the tree.

Of course, there are always those idiots who will say that wasn't the case at all - that someone came along and planted a pre-crushed car, damaged the tree, painted the skid marks etc.

Those people should be mocked like the imbeciles they are.

Even if there were to be some truth to the abiogenesis idea, at this time there is nothing empirical, testable, falsifiable which irrefutably supports the postulate, or else we would have seen it by now.

Nonsense.

Yet, the assumption persists, and it does appear that those whom dare point this out, will have poo flung at them.

For the same reason the idiots in my analogy above will be mocked.

Blue Dragon: You say that abiogenesis is not assumption?

Filo: Correct

Me: Filo is about as evo-religious as you can get...and yet he mistakes his nature-worship for science!!!

For instance you can drive around a curve to see skid marks on the road and another car wrapped around a tree, smoke and steam coming from the engine. One can reasonably conclude from those facts that the car missed the curve and hit the tree. Of course, there are always those idiots who will say that wasn't the case at all -

Yet, you would have us believe that not only was there no driver, but that the car was actually a motorcycle, as it braked, before hitting the tree.

And you think we're idiots....

I guess that you cannot see how the qualifier "empirical" is being applied to "testable" and "falsifiable" in relation to the assumption of abiogenesis.

You wave it all away with the statement "nonsense".

A more honest man would admit that that portion of "evolutionary theory" is indeed assumption, regardless of the consequence. Many in the scientific community do. The admission itself does not nor would not negate the idea, in and of itself.

What are you so afraid of?