@atheistpoet Hitchens is pseudo-philosophers masquerading as “scientist.”
Dawkins was practically the same.
Criteria: the absurdity of their claims being paradoxical to their criticism of theism.
@atheistpoet I am no avoiding evidence for creation; I am staying on subject.
You keep avoiding admitting that the “support” for abiogenesis is “possibility,” absent of scientific evidence/data.
Thus, you rail against creation theory (which at no point in our discussion have I argued for).
@atheistpoet So there is more support (conjecture absent of data/evidence) for abiogenesis than “creation?”
What support is that?
My whole argument is that you have asserted a claim of support/evidence that is inaccurate.
@atheistpoet The support for abiogenesis relies on hypothesis, not actual evidence.
1. They don’t know the actual early conditions of Earth.
2. The problem still remains that at no point was “life” produced from the experiments.
Ergo, no supportive evidence.
@atheistpoet My apologies, as I was unclear:
Please give one example of evidence that abiogenesis is supported that is actual evidence, not “possibility.”
@atheistpoet This is a nice list.
Please don’t assume I will be able to address every one of these in a single response.
I will try to response to each one.
The easiest way is to name one that shows evidence; not “possibility.”
Possibility is not evidence, rather hypothesis.