News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Yet you are incredulous that abiogenesis could be possible. This is a common creationist claim -- that something cannot be so because they cannot believe it could be so -- one of Russ' favourites too. Why don't you have a bit of a hunt around here and look at some past conversations. You can revive some old threads if you want, rather than carrying on in this one alone.


I'm not sure I understand how someone would feel flattered by being told that they are using a logical fallacy in a debate.

You are discussing these comments about spontaneous generation and rust/snowflakes/etc with LinearAQ so I will make redundant posts on the issue. Both of us have explained to you how spontaneous generation is a different idea from abiogenesis. It also shows that scientists are willing to change their ideas about the world based on experimentation and new knnowledge. Can you say the same for creationists? When do they put their own beliefs to the test? Can you suggest an experiment that would produce some positive evidence for creationism?


No one has ever said that scientists are 100% certain of the answer. There is currently less evidence for abiogenesis than there is for evolution. We are learning more all the time though, and the abiogenesis idea for how life began is now robust enough to be considered a theory.


A true skeptic keeps an open mind. "Explaining away" ideas is not skepticism but dogmatism. If someone claims that an idea which has been observed, tested, replicated, and published in science journals is incorrect, then that claim needs proof, just as the people who advocate the idea need proof for its legitimacy.

If someone claimed that they could levitate themselves to the moon then this is easy to disprove scientifically. First, we know of gravity and its effects. Second, we know that there is no air up there to breathe. Third, we know of other effects of the hostile environment of space on the human body. An easier way still would be to say "show me," which they would be unable to do.

This is not the same as dismissing a claim out of hand. If you are going to rubbish a scientific theory, then as I said above, you do need to provide your own evidence against it. I don't agree with these "burden of proof" statements, though maybe you picked them up from a few people at EvC, I don't know.


You have consistently states the view that scientists are liars. You claim that you know better than they do. For example, you claimed that Gonzales was "doing fine work" even though you are not an astronomer and have never read a single paper of his.

I Googled "flat earth Bible" and found sites with claims that there are places where the Bible says the earth is flat. Like I said, I have no interest in the answer to this. But it shows that there is disagreement on the subject. The claims I read sounded logical enough. At any rate, this is a side issue not related to any of the points at hand. If you want to talk about the Bible and a flat or a round earth you can do it in the Bible forum.