Replies

Still dishonestly asserting that evolution has ever tied itself to abiogenesis.

Evolution has never been able to separate itself from spontaneous generation, current attempt not withstanding. You do know about charlie's warm ponds, don't you?

Say that tomorrow, biologists determine that it is completely impossible for life to emerge from non-life. That abiogenesis is impossible

The hard core materialists cannot accede without destroying their philosophical basis. Abiogenesis is already impossible and you won't find many professionals who still hold to it. Atheists like yourself must realize the implications of admitting the truth so we expect that centuries later you will still be embracing the miracle of abiogenesis while, at the same time, denying the possibility of miracles altogether.

How does this falsify common descent?

It destroys materialism, the foundation of evolution (I've simplified the language so it will be easier to grasp):

Anything but spontaneous generation opens the door to the existence of God.

If God exists, then miracles are automatically possible (and atheists are in trouble).

If miracles are possible, materialism collapses: There is more to the universe than matter and its motion.

If materialism collapses, evolution has lost its philosophical foundation, the lens through which all the evidence is interpreted, and "a Divine foot gets in the door" (Lewontin).

Therefore the status of the statement,"The origin of man must have happened through common descent because there is no God and there are no miracles," changes from cross-your-fingers-and-hope, to absolutely false.

I'm sure that I won't get a logical or rational answer, but I'll ask anyway.

Since you are still in the habit of disparaging the intelligence of others, let me remind you that the atheist is among the most irrational in history. An intellectual would know that he is not omniscient yet would need to be in order to know with certainty that God did not exist. You are not omniscient so how do you know that God does not exist? You do not; you simply believe it by faith (or you are not an atheist and only claim to be one). Although agnosticism would not be entirely logical for a disbeliever, it would at least remove the difficulty of explaining why you know God does not exist.

Evolution has never been able to separate itself from spontaneous generation, current attempt not withstanding.

How can it seperate itself from something to which it was never tied in the first place?

The hard core materialists cannot accede without destroying their philosophical basis.

I'm not speaking of hardcore materialism, I'm speaking of the theory of evolution.

Abiogenesis is already impossible and you won't find many professionals who still hold to it.

Evidence for this assertion?

It destroys materialism, the foundation of evolution (I've simplified the language so it will be easier to grasp):

No, materialism is not the foundation of evolution, you shameless liar.

Anything but spontaneous generation opens the door to the existence of God.

Misleading statement. Implies that spontaneous generation occurs only if a God does not exist, which is not true. Everything, including spontaneous generation "opens the door to the existence of God".

If God exists, then miracles are automatically possible (and atheists are in trouble).

This I will concede is true, however you have not established that a God must necessarily exist if spontaneous generation is impossible.

That's one "maybe".

If miracles are possible, materialism collapses: There is more to the universe than matter and its motion.

Since evolution isn't materialism -- in spite of your lies to the contrary -- I don't see your point.

If materialism collapses, evolution has lost its philosophical foundation, the lens through which all the evidence is interpreted, and "a Divine foot gets in the door" (Lewontin).

Only in as much as all science loses the "lens through which all the evidence is interpreted", which means that the implications for evolution are the same as the implications for gravity. But you won't admit that, because you only want to trash evolution, so you give evolution some special "ultra-materialistic" position that absolutely requires the nonexistence of the supernatural, even though the theory does not require any such thing.

Of course, the fact that the possibility of miracles means that our observations are potentially inaccurate does not falsify evolution. It is possible that our observations are accurate even though miracles are possible.

So that's another "maybe". "Maybe" our observations are inaccurate...but then again, maybe not.

Therefore the status of the statement,"The origin of man must have happened through common descent because there is no God and there are no miracles," changes from cross-your-fingers-and-hope, to absolutely false.

If evolution were founded upon such a statement, you would have a point. It is not, however, so you do not.

And if you're going to assert that evolution does have such a foundation, I'll thank you to support the assertion rather than just insisting that you know more about the theory than actual biologists who don't seem to have heard of that particular caveat.

Since you are still in the habit of disparaging the intelligence of others, let me remind you that the atheist is among the most irrational in history.

Oh, boy. Another arrogant jerk who thinks that he's read my mind.

An intellectual would know that he is not omniscient yet would need to be in order to know with certainty that God did not exist

I don't know with certainty that there are no gods. I do, however, wonder why you use the term "God", which implies a specific, pre-defined entity rather than the generic term "deities". It's like you've somehow discerned that a deity does exist, and not only that, you know which one it is. Are you omniscient?

You are not omniscient so how do you know that God does not exist?

I don't. I simply lack belief because, thus far, I've not had reason to believe such a thing. i'm one of those rational people who doesn't buy every unsupported assertion tossed to me. I also don't know for certain that Zeus, Brahman, Odin, Baal, Kali, Ra or Tlazolteotl don't exist. Can you say the same?