The argument seems to be that, since abiogenesis is not understood, goddidit. It’s a God of the gaps argument. I think such arguments diminish God. It also is not really about evolution, which describes changes in living things, presupposing those living things.
The really dangerous part of the argument is that some people may take it to heart, beliving our (likely temporary) ignorance is a key to the existence of God. That leaves their faith open to shattering once the ignorance is dispelled.
==The argument seems to be that, since abiogenesis is not understood, goddidit.
You just assumed what must be proved.
As for the rest, it has nothing to do with the debate. If you wish to stay on topic, please respond to the papers that the affirmative is based on using arguments that are specific to the same. Thank you.
All the best—GGG
[[The argument seems to be that, since abiogenesis is not understood, goddidit.]]
Cacoethes- As I told What’shisname- The author has an OPINION abotu hwo or what hte itnelleigence is- however- the central theme is NOT abotu who or what the itnelleignece is, but rather the FACT that all we know abotu nature, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that nature is incapable of creating hte intelligently designed species examined i nthe article. You can either address this central theme or not- but making false claims abotu what hte article is about certainly doesn’t help shore up your beleif that ‘naturedidit’ without any evidence to support your beleif- infact, the evidneces show nature couldn’t have done it- and htis is precisely what hte article is about- you are projecting something onto the article that simp[ly should not be projected-