Both are evolutionary. You can't have one and not the other since they are both atheistic.

Haha I just read the spoiler. It's just an article by an apologetic you've copied on here?! That would explain how your previous response to me was so nonsensical, after the article could at least string an argument together (no matter how flawed). I thought that was weird. So I understand now that it's not you being dishonest, it's the author of this article. I would put money on the fact that he knew he was being disingenuous when he wrote that, but that it suited his purpose to misrepresent the argument. It's rather sad that people are lying to you so blatantly, and sadder still that you are on the Internet with so much information available and still trust such a dubious source. I'm going to look up this guy's qualifications.

What are your credentials?

Don't be daft, I'm not the one writing articles claiming to know better than the experts. He is not qualified to have any authority on this matter. You're being dishonest again.

When you asked for the OP's credentials, it stated that you were introducing a new factor to the topic, being dependent off of the experience of one who claimed to know something about the subject. Then if we are going to involve this factor, we should make it easily fair enough to involve your credentials since you are the one who is spewing information not from articles but from your opinion. How is this dishonest?

Im not the one making any claims. It is his article were discussing - that makes his credentials relevant.

I agree with the article and with the information that it states. From your previous reply, are you saying that this article needs to involve his credentials? Why his and not yours if you intend to counter it? And you stated two replies beforehand that what I did (unknown to me) beforehand was dishonest (which was?).

I don't need to counter it. Thousands of scientists with the proper credentials have stated things that directly contradict many of the points made in this article. This is one of a handful of individuals that won't accept the general consensus, and he's not even qualified in the field.

Please provide an article that is not [b]speculated[/b] and is provided by one's credentials that you trust.

Find one yourself, try looking on a proper scientific website instead of your usual highly dubious sources.

I thought you said there were thousands of scientists that disagree with his statement. It shouldn't be difficult for you to find at least one. You stated the fact.

Then it would be equally easy for you to find them too! I am not here to spoon feed you. Try any proper scientific website. Try peer reviewed papers. [i]Please provide an article that is not speculated and is provided by one one's credentials that you trust.[/i] This is your thread, and the original post does not fit the criteria you are now asking for. It is speculated with no evidence as back up, and put forward by someone who has no qualifications in the relevant field. The irony of now requesting that from me to refute an unsupported claim in the first place should not be lost on anyone. But anyway, this is all an aside. I began this thread by pointing out that evolution and abiogenesis are two different subjects. To quote the original article; "Evolution is a fact only at a very small scale. It is fantasy when it is used to explain how plants and animals came into existence..." No-one is claiming that evolution gives an answer to how life began. He [i]must[/i] know that if he has done any reading. It therefore cannot be a considered a problem with the theory of evolution, as evolution has nothing to say on the matter. The question of how life began, abiogenesis, is unanswered so far by science. We simply do not now yet. To even claim that the fact that we can't yet explain abiogenesis has any impact on evolution is incredibly dishonest or hugely ignorant. So within the first two lines of the article, the author is either lying or showing that he doesn't understand the subject he sees fit to talk about, it really is that simple.

So... I'm really not sure how you can display this level of confusion over a subject you seem to have actually read about. 1. You stated before that abiogenesis is evolutionary (?). This statement needs explanation. Evolutionary basically means something explains the diversity of species through natural selection. Abiogenesis is how life started. Evolution is an answer whereas abiogenesis is a separate question. Life arising for the first time can't be explained in terms of how life diverged once it existed. That simply doesn't make any sense. You must know this if you've actually done reading on the subject. 2. As for them both being atheistic, that's a strange thing to say. Neither say anything about god claims at all. Sure, both could fit into an atheistic view, but not exclusively - evolution is widely accepted in many religions too. That doesn't mean you'd call it theistic either. Im currently trying to work out whether you know you're being dishonest or not, because I don't see how you could have made such a basic and seemingly deliberate error. If you respond please stick to point 1, your conflation if evolution and abiogenesis, it might help to look at the confusion there first of all.

[quote]So... I'm really not sure how you can display this level of confusion over a subject you seem to have actually read about. You stated before that abiogenesis is evolutionary (?). This statement needs explanation.[/quote]Abiogenesis is evolutionary, meaning that it is a necessary science for evolution to be believed in. What do we agree with if it isn't without evidence? We must make what we believe evidential so that we don't automatically assume some bias mentality.[quote]"Evolutionary" basically means "something [that] explains the diversity of species through natural selection.[/quote]That is actually the definition of "evolution." "Evolutionary" has the denotation of meaning "that which is like or pertaining to the study of evolution"; hence, the additive suffix of "-ary," which is in the same descriptive terminology of "-ic, -ical, -ane, -ary, etc."[quote]Abiogenesis is the [study on] how life started.[/quote]Fixed.[quote]Evolution is an answer whereas abiogenesis is a separate question.[/quote]Yes, but both of which are created to support eachother. That is why it can be categorized as "that which pertains to evolution."[quote]Life arising for the first time can't be explained in terms of how life diverged once it existed.[/quote]What?[quote]That simply doesn't make any sense.[/quote]Agreed.[quote]You must know this if you've actually done reading on the subject.[/quote]Yes. I have.[quote]As for them both being atheistic, that's a strange thing to say. Neither say anything about god claims at all.[/quote]That is the thing. It doesn't mention anything that has anything to do with God. It neither talks about how He created the world, or even why it shouldn't even be considered. We admittedly avoid the topic in order to only justify our reasoning and not the thinking that finite things may actually require an infinite cause. "Atheistic" possesses the words "a-," "THEIST," and "-ic," which you know what "-ic" means, but "a-" and "THEIST" give off the denotation of "not or against" and "that which pertains to God or gods," respectively. This word actually does indeed and accurately describe the studies since they admittedly avoid God's possibility by "not" including Him.[quote]Sure, both could fit into an atheistic view, but not exclusively.[/quote]It is atheistic. There is no point to attempt to deny it.[quote]Evolution is widely accepted in many religions too.[/quote]No argument there.[quote]That doesn't mean you'd call it theistic either.[/quote]Of course, it depends on the individual who includes it in their science or theology.[quote]I'm currently trying to work out whether you know you're being dishonest or not...[/quote]I can assure you that all my responses are repeats of what I know to be true and self-evident. I have no intention to deceive anyone, only to tell what I know.[quote]...because I don't see how you could have made such a basic and seemingly deliberate error.[/quote]What was the error? I don't remember you saying that there was one.[quote]If you respond please stick to point one, your conflation if evolution and abiogenesis, it might help to look at the confusion there first of all.[/quote]I didn't get to read it all of it before I replied. Sorry, but I'm going to reply anyway since I'm already at this point.[spoiler]I really like how much effort you put into your reply. Usually I get one-sentenced insulting replies. Nice to see some intelligence can be exhibited in the Flood. It's always fun to get new questions.[/spoiler]

Oh and while we're at it, can you rewrite your first paragraph in this last response please? It's not very clearly written and the point is getting lost as a result.

You don't understand the first paragraph?

Absolutely not. Some of the words aren't right so I'm not getting what you're trying to say.

Which words?

Either rephrase it or don't, your call.

Again, which words? I did a minor adjustment. Do you still don't understand?

I understand all the words, if I didn't I would use a dictionary. The whole paragraph is just not making any sense. It might be because what you're trying to say is nonsensical, it's hard to tell at the moment. If you want a good dialogue, rephrase it. If you don't, just keep prevaricating.

Is this the paragraph?[spoiler]Abiogenesis is evolutionary, meaning that it is a necessary science in order for evolution to be believed to have some ground for existing. What is it that we as scientists dabble in if we dabble in it without providing some support to explain it's (what we believe) existence? We must make what we believe evidential so that we don't automatically assume some bias mentality.[/spoiler]