Evolution is not Abiogenesis

Depending on how masochistic you guys are feeling, you could petition Percy to get Buz the right to post in perhaps just this one topic?

Na, we all already knew that long ago. It's a) fun to publicly humiliate him and show the error of his beliefs and b) he gets/keeps discussions going, even if it's for all the wrong reasons. Circlejerks are most certainly NOT fun. Hell, he's been pestering Percy for a shot maybe this can be it (even though we all know it will end in a catostrophic-shitstorm-gish-gallop).

EvC is neither.

You are absolutely correct. however, that doesn't explain why they refuse to accept that evolution does not need abiogenesis even after being told. Hell, even after the biggest names in the creationist game have been told over and over and over (comfort, Ham, Gish, Hovind etc.).

Preach on brutha jar!I know what religionists say about their creaiton myth, what Mod said still doesn't explain why they continue to conflate evolution and abiogenesis. No one is telling them they have to accept either, just that they need to at least understand they are different theories that both would work independantly of one another.

Just because a majority of profound scientists are atheists does NOT mean "atheists control science". DATA controls science. Is origin of species a paper? Nope. It's a book. No one is requesting "darwin's black box" to be peer reviewed. Just because Darwn's book contained more facts than any ID anything doesn't mean it needs to be peer reviewed.