hooberus, where is the difficulty in understanding my statement?
"I believe that at this moment initial origins ARE unprovable"
I think it is quite clear. Do you understand it?
Now, let's try a second sentence;
"I feel, given the evidence NOW, and the historical evidence we have, that the theory of god is far less credible than the theory of a naturalistic origin."
Now, you claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable. I disagree, some theories of abiogenesis have been falsiified, others may be falisified, but your claim that the idea of abiogenesis being totally falsifiable NOW is itself, false.
You are welcome to provide evidence showing that every theory of abiogenesis has been falsified, but as they haven't, you can't, and your assertion is either a lie or you demonstrating you don't know enough about what you are talking about to make reliable statements.
You also in your reply make another incorrect statement, again, either a lie or ignorance;
"hense only chance and chemical properties are left which cannot explain self-reproduction"
I've been telling you to look at prions for ages now, you have no excuse. If you had, I doubt you'd of made that statement.
I have a feeling you have restricted your study of the sciences to specific arenas and cases which lend themselves to defending your obsession with a literalistic biblical interpretation. Time and time again, you show you don't have a comprehensive knowledge of topics you debate in.
When this is pointed out, you get so annoyed! It's a bit like an Englishman who likes Rugby considering himself an expert on NFL 'cause he read a few magazine articles, and then complaining bitterly and sulking, when people laugh at him when he asks then when they're going to have a scrum.
You're free to make these comments, but I'm free to think what I like about your competence in the biological sciences based upon your comments. If I said Jesus was a kangaroo, you'd laugh at me, so please don't start singing ad hoberus...
If I am wrong regarding your scientific comprehension, explain for me, in your own words, to a level of complexity one would expect from a College undergraduate, either photosynthesis, or the use of ATP, or spermatogenesis.
Where does that leave us? You've made an assertion you cannot support... but let us humour you.
Say that currently, all theories of abiogenesis and cosmology that make a godless Universe possible WERE falsifiable.
How did we get here? You cannot prove that god exists. Based upon what it says in the Bible about god caring, it is illogical that god would have removed any possible evidence for its existence, as to do so would raise unanswerable questions, or at least raise questions with presuppositionalistic answers. Intelligent design is laughable, and I do hope you disagree with me on this as I have some crackers to prove it with.
You cannot prove that the Bible is an inspired book. Some of the dictates in it are obviously tribal laws created with no conception of human biology. Either that or god has a funny sense of humour. Some of it portrays god acting in a way that would get him arrained in the Hauge as a War Criminal (unless he's an American citizen, as they've not signed the treaty). That's not consistant either.
You cannot prove that there is an afterlife. No one has ever proved there is an afterlife.
You cannot prove that Jesus existed. You even avoid answerig the questions that shoot holes in your carefully constructed tower of beliefs regarding the reality of Jesus.
Now you want me to believe in what you believe when you can prove NOTHING?
You are telling me that the world's entire scientific community and media are in a conspiracy to lie about fossils, dating methods, you name it, and that a few scientists here and there have a clear insight of the truth? Sounds a bit like people who say there is an Zionist conspiracy, or that there are Aliens here NOW, or that contrails are actually chemicals sprayed for the government's psycological control program.
You expect me to find it logical that a god would expect people to believe in things which have the same amount of proof as fairy stories, or that somehow forcing people to exercise faith (blind acceptence of what people can't prove) is in any way consistant with the god of the Bible?
No thanks. I find more fact and closure in science than in your theology.
At the same time I'm not saying god doesn't exist. But if there is a god, it's nothing like what is says in the Bible. This I feel IS provable, from using the Bible.
This is perhaps your greatest fault. You are such a Christian chauvanist that you cannot see that most major world religions have equal degrees of proof, yet are convinced that the one you happened to have been born into it the right one.
If it makes you happy...
