I find it amusing that evolutionists insist that abiogenesis be taught right alongside evolution as "fact" in the schools. The two go together and always have.
But anytime abiogenesis comes up in an argument against evolution, it's "See how ignorant and uneducated you are! You don't even know that evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different theories!"
And it's obvious why they don't like the two to be linked. Both are flawed, but abiogenesis is sooooo obviously flawed they don't like having to defend it.
And the Big Bang? Well, just look at the history. All three of these stories were made up and spread about and shoved down everyone's throat by the same bunch. The Big Bang was indeed resisted, for good reasons and for silly reasons. Only after it was demonstrated that it was sufficiently compatible with atheism was it accepted.
Seriously, the only thing really tipping the scales in favor of the BB vs. the steady state at all is the redshift first observed by Hubble. There was no new evidence submitted at all during the decades it took for it to become accepted. (Some will say the steady state has a conservation of energy problem, but BB has more than one of these and they're all several orders of magnitude larger. It's like comparing a bucket of water to the Indian ocean!)
And don't forget the oldest member of the family: gradualist 'geology'. Have layers ever been observed building up gradually over time. Yes! The 'tels' in the Middle East were all built up this way. They're all man-made. Other than that, you won't see land building up the way gradualist geology speculates.
What does every member of the group have in common? (I mean those who actively promote the 4 stories of origins, not the unfortunate folks who have been misled.) They all desire that the stories they invent should be accepted, and historical records should be rejected. Historical records from all over the world. And they appeal to our arrogance, telling us our ancestors were "primitive" and "superstitious", but in this age we can be "enlightened".
Now of the four, the case for evolution is actually the strongest. Not because it is valid; rather because it it made 100 different ways using everything they can dream up. And to thoroughly debunk it, they claim you must debunk each and every piece of it. But think about it. If there's any lifeform, even just one - any lifeform that evolution can't explain, it fails as an explanation of origins. Even a single organ that is beyond evolution to bring about demolishes it, right?
"Oh no!" they'll respond. And they'll rant or talk down to me like I'm a kindergartener depending on which one is first. Yes, they will. They won't be able to stop themselves. I'm not the first to say evolution could be refuted in this way. No, Charles Darwin himself wrote it into the book they consider to be sacred text. And they'll read this, and know he wrote it, and still come tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Why? Because the only way to defend evolution is to snow the opposition under with a vast, unending multitude of lies. And once a person sees that all it takes is one single link to break the chain, it's not hard at all to find such a link. For each link is very weak. They don't bind people with the strength of this chain; rather they weigh them down with its sheer bulk.
And all a person has to do is look around this forum right here to see that this is so. How does any discussion of an evolutionary topic go? Snow the person under with tons of nonsense. Oh yes, and redefine terms a dozen times or more. There isn't a single link in the whole long chain of crud that can't be broken, and they themselves must know this - no question.
Now why must these things all be grouped together and taught as fact? Why is must it be illegal to mention any hint of weakness in any of these "theories? This is not the case with sciences dealing with present-day events. It's not the case even with history dealing with recent events. One can discuss the controversy about the Kennedy assassination in class, no problem. Question the textbooks' stories on Ben Franklin or Tom Jefferson? Sure, why not. But question a sacred tenet of evolution? No way! (I don't mean to say a child will be jailed for asking, but the teacher is required to only affirm the doctrine, even when it is out-of-date by decades.)
And it's no surprise that the same people who accept any one of these things will usually accept all four. For they form an extended chain. If a person finds one to be in error, they will surely question the other three. Now I readily concede that persons do exist who mix things up and accept part of this chain while rejecting other parts. I also concede that this is a trick I could not pull off. But my point is that those who have rejected abiogenesis have at least questioned the other three issues.
One of my other favorite issues is the number of "scientists" they claim they have backing their side. Let's see now... I go to school, and they teach me lies. I go to college, and they teach me lies. College costs big money, but they don't appreciate that. They base my grade on whether or not I accept these lies. Not "can I remember and regurgitate them?" No. The issue is "do I believe them?" Why in the world should I pay one cent for such treatment?
Now not all professors are like that. In fact most are not. But there are enough to get the job done. They only need one solid barrier to keep you from getting your degree. (How well these people understand issues involving the number one!) And there goes the student's family's fortune down the drain. There are those who have braved the system and made it through, praise God for each one of them. But given alternatives, most folks choose a path of less resistance.
The weakness of the system is that people aren't immune to truth, and many catch it after they've already made it through the system. They have their own difficulties, of course.
Now I recommend to anyone who cares about these things that they pick the strongest part of the strongest of these four stories, and take a good close look at it. What assumptions does it require up front? Does it employ circular reasoning or any other logical fallacies? Is it based on solid science, or speculation? (I mean really solid - not just a reputation). If you didn't believe the evolutionist stories, would you interpret it the way they do?
Oh, and don't be intimidated by mumbo-jumbo. I haven't seen much at all that I couldn't have tackled when I was 12 years old, not even in real science. Okay, that's a trick statement. I was smarter then than I am now. But none of it's as hard as they make it out to be.
It bears repeating how weak abiogenesis is. The advocates of evolution are reluctant to include it, and that's a dead give-away right there. Darwin himself was reluctant to offer more than threadbare speculations about a primordial pond, and they haven't improved the case much. Sure they make a big deal about synthesizing compounds in a lab, and claim they're creating life... but is it so? Or is it more mumbo-jumbo?
Well, look into it. Look at the scale of the issue. It's like saying a toddler stacking one brick on top of another is building the Empire State Building. They're a long, long, long ways away. Farther actually, but I got tired of typing the word 'long'. And I'm talking about 'expert scientists' working with state-of-the-art equipment. Life only comes from life. That's a law of science. That's a well-established fact. Anyone disputing it has quite a large burden of proof (if you want to actually be scientific about it).
Now given a law of science that says one thing, why would people be adamant that it should be discarded, and frequently hateful toward persons who accept this law? Why would they claim it isn't so without presenting any serious evidence? Why would they... aw shoot, just watch what they do. It's often entertaining once you get past how pathetic it is.
...and we all know the reason why.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
