Evolution is not Abiogenesis

I accept every theory in science that we can directly observe, and practically apply in our daily lives. None of it is used as a philosophical weapon against religion, so that makes it less atheistic than evolution.

Then what’s their budget for? So you missed my earlier link that showed the research they’ve submitted? They might have millions, but it dwarfs in comparison to the ongoing public establishment of abiogenesis.

No, because evolution starts with life, nothing can evolve unless it’s already living. Abiogenesis starts with non life, what makes it similar to evolution is that it occurs (to its faithful) over long periods of time, increasing in complexity, by undirected, naturalistic processes. Not my logic, it’s your straw man. Abiogenesis starts with non life. Those papers didn’t demonstrate anything about that.

To avoid evolutionist cut-ins, I won’t attempt to respond to 6 messages individually. Since this is my summary, I can make my final points best if I take them somewhat out of order. It’s most efficient to conclude with message 205.
________________________________________MESSAGE 200 In a quick glance of a paper that I have little interest in, (since this discussion we’re having is largely philosophical) I saw terms like agar media, velveteen yardage, autoclaves, auxoheterotrophics, dense inoculas, etc. I didn’t/don’t know or care if these terms are exclusive to abiogenesis or not. I assumed maybe they were, because I foolishly believed the lie I was told. I understand now — one evolutionist lied, and a dozen others winked and nodded. So in science, points can sometimes be made by telling lies?That’s largely where the creation v evolution debate is today. Evolutionists are so far removed from morality and truth that they think nothing of playing this type of game — referencing something with big fancy words, lying about what it means, watching a dozen other like minded evolutionists trip and fall all over themselves to cover for them, then ridiculing any creationist that is surprised that he’s not dealing with honest people. I’ve been discussing creation v evolution (on this forum and one other) for about 10 years now. I must say I’m amazed by this new low by evolutionists, though it’s probably not new. I’ve probably just been missing it for that long.
____________________________________________MESSAGE 211 I agree, that doesn’t clash with my views at all. No — abiogenesis would have a slightly closer relationship with evolution than it would with things like geology, because both abiogenesis and evolution concern biology / living things. Another important reason they're not separate is that they both provide intellectual fulfillment for atheism.
___________________________________________MESSAGE 212 Depending on how evolution is defined, yes. Change over time, within kinds. I don’t think it’s because the religion is based on denial, I think it’s because some scientists tweak the evidence to make it appear to contradict religion. After all, a Noble prize winning scientist, Steven Weinberg, said that science should be used to weaken the hold of religion. He appeared to receive no criticism whatsoever from the scientific community for that statement.
___________________________________________-MESSAGE 210 You can call it back-peddling if you want, but I’m sure not chasing you and your goalpost moving for miles and miles. It’s common knowledge that there is nowhere near a complete theory on how life can naturalistically originate. One of the other evolutionists here could easily explain that to you. But they won’t.
____________________________________________MESSAGE 206 I wouldn’t have a problem with the three laws, I’d just have a problem with what the atheists were saying about them /how the atheists were using them. No, I’d reject (question) those who use it that way. Evolutionist pots calling creationist kettles black is also confirmed in this thread. Evidence is always carried, presented, proclaimed by imperfect humans. Creationists use evidence the same as anyone else, they just don’t always trust those who present evidence. Geologists could go on a complete, thorough examination of gravesites, rocks and soil in the states of Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, etc. and claim to produce mounds of evidence that the civil war never happened. I wouldn’t believe them. I’d acknowledge their evidence, and agree with them that it means something, but not necessarily what they claim it means.
___________________________________________MESSAGE 205 I do have problems with terms like velveteen yardage, autoclaves, auxoheterotrophics, dense inoculas, and those terms are largely irrelevant to philosophical discussions such as these. If you disagree let me know, and I’ll start watching for evolutionists to display the slightest bit of knowledge of mathematics, and other terms that are in the book Darwin’s Black Box. There are lots of English words there that evolutionists show no knowledge of. Not necessarily, but you’ve just largely made my entire point, so this will be a good place to summarize, and finish up. On many places on the internet, and well as forums such as these, the terms micro and macro are brought up almost exclusively by creationists, to distinquish between changes within kinds, and the (more philosophical) changes necessary for all life on earth to have one common ancestor. And it’s evolutionists who say there is no difference between them, that they are completely useless terms. That evolution works exactly the same way, there is no distinction between micro and macro. Now that you thought those terms could suit the evolutionist in this particular discussion , I see you’re glad to bring them up. It’s a perfect example of the slipperyness of evolution, the presto-changos that are so common among evolutionists.Actually, abiogenesis would have nothing to do with micro or macro, since it’s simply a theoretical beginning of ONE life form from non life, without concerning anything near the complexities of the diversity of life that evolution is involved with. But it would still share the change over time concerning biology that evolution also has. All I’ll go around saying is that Taq linked a paper on evolution in message 127, and called it a paper on abiogeneis. It may be considered sarcasm by some worldviews, it may be considered recucto ad absurdum by some worldviews, it may be considered a cute and fun thing to do by the atheist worldview, but any honest worldview will consider what it actually is, a LIE. I’ll go around saying that one evolutionist LIED, and about a dozen other evolutionists winked and nodded. As I said, I’ve been posting in creationist v evolutionist forums for a decade, and it amazed even me. This is my final message in this thread. I’ll probably continue to check the proposed new topics forum from time to time to see what new stuff gets promoted, just to see if there are any more questions I can answer to everyone’s satisfaction.