[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]