Evolution & Abiogenesis were originally one subject.

What Huntard said.Abiogenesis is life from non-life... the kind of thing various gods are said to do with dirt or mud and such.Unless of course you believe that god "magicked" life into existence when he "magicked" matter into existence.Science doesn't invoke magical explanations. Consequently science has made great strides at understanding how the first life may have come about without the aide of any holy books and they can test their hypothesis against reality. The facts are available to anyone with an education too-- no revelation is required. Look at this recent discovery: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/06/100630171711.htmI think creationists confuse evolution with abiogenesis and the big bang because they get all their knowledge from creotards... er creationist sites. If you want to understand science, you ought to go to scientific sources not people who claim expertise on realms and beings that have not been demonstrated to exist. Many religionists who do so, have no problem with evolution... nor do they confuse evolution with abiogenesis. (See Ken Miller and Francis Collins).Many creationists have a vested interest in being incurious and maintaining their ignorance-- they imagine they are "saved" for for not accepting evolution, and that they may be punished for doubting the Genesis tale. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them that evolution is not abiogenesis, the big bang, nor atheism-- their indoctrinators seem to have convinced them otherwise, and even religious evolutionists have trouble giving them a clue.

I agree that no one had come up with a good creationist argument, but I'd imagine that a great many people would be interested in such an argument if there ever was such a thing-- especially if it came with actual evidence.I can understand why creationists would be afraid of the evidence for evolution. They've been indoctrinated to believe that they have to have faith in a certain version of events to live "happily ever after" and some have been threatened with hell for a loss of that faith.But then their delusion has to include this world where scientists are uninterested in the facts even though these facts could help them live happily ever after! If there was an invisible being who wanted people to believe certain things to live happily after they die, then wouldn't every scientist be interested in finding out more about that being and what he wanted so they could make their own eternity fabulous? Wouldn't they be gathering, and testing all the evidence-- testing various prophets and so forth to see which one could do the most, predict the best, raise the dead or whatever?When stuff is true, the evidence accumulates-- look at all we've done with DNA-- mapped genomes, paternity tests, forensics, etc. It just must take a lot of paranoia, indoctrination, and obfuscation to tell yourself that science is a conspiracy and that the real truth belongs to a certain sect which developed on the planet less than 2000 years ago.But this idea of scientists killing people...?! I can only imagine that a person who thinks that has gotten science confused with religion. It's religion that cares about what people believe; Science cares about what is true regardless of what people believe.