[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]

Yes.

New version: 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.

Are you saying that in order for me to believe in evolution I must believe in abiogenesis? Bearing in mind there is no scientific consensus about the origin of life, what exactly do you think I must believe? I honestly have no idea what you're taking about. How did we get the diversity of life we see today and in the fossil record? Evolution. We have massive amounts of proof. How did life begin? Not sure yet. But now we're on a different topic so whatever the answer it doesn't have any bearing on evolution. It's like claiming that everything we know about gravity is wrong because we don't know what caused it in the first place (although we do have that answer now). It doesn't affect what we can observe and the predictions we can make just because we don't know why the phenomenon exists.

[quote]Are you saying that in order for me to believe in evolution I must believe in abiogenesis?[/quote]No.[quote]Bearing in mind there is no scientific consensus about the origin of life, what exactly do you think I must believe?[/quote]I'm assuming that you believe evolution is not a cyclical process but an ever-changing process that manifested from "simpler beginnings" but somehow (on its own at a random time) came into existence. I assume that you believe that evolution is the answer as to how we have the diversity of living things. I do not know why you think so, but you think this way anyway even though we understand that a finch is a bird and a wolf is a dog. I assume that you neither have a belief as to how everything came into being not an explanation as to how organic life manifested from non-organic material; thus, what you believe is trusted to be true by faith. That's what I'm assuming about you.[quote]I honestly have no idea what you're taking about.[/quote]Replier shows honesty.[quote]How did we get the diversity of life we see today and in the fossil record?[/quote]How did we indeed? Do you agree that life has existed on Earth for about four and a half billion years? Then you must assume that a lot of living things have lived and died. Correct? You yell, "Proof! Look at the fossil record!" and I say, "And? I agree whole-heartedly that the biology of life on Earth was extremely different, and even the Bible dictated that creatures during our 'simpler beginnings' existed, and our diet never consisted of meat until centuries later, but they obviously no longer matter." Then I wonder. Why the controversy? The fossil record shows evidence of only micro-evolution (variations of the same species), but it does not show either branches of at least one species or the high count of transitional fossils for even one species. If evolution does indeed operate over millions to billions of years, is their not supposed to be over at least a million (which there isn't) transitional fossil records per species (or at least for one species)? Evolutionists claim that the process of evolution is in fact very slow and very minuet, but all atheistic archeologists can find are only an acclaimed few and state, "These few (not many) transitional fossils tell us that [insert name of species] have evolved on planet Earth for over millions of millennia." Even Darwin doubted as to the origin of these small minuet changes that were acclaimed to be caused by the present environmental hazards he assumed to be affecting their biology, saying, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory" ([i]On the Origin of Species[/i], Chapter 6). The study of abiogenesis doesn't even have a conclusion as to the manifestation of organic life from non-organic material, or even a conclusion as to the necessity and development of intelligence (for only one species) and it's irreducible complexity.

I might as well be debating kent hovind, all you're doing is repeating his repeatedly debunked gibberish.

Do you not have direct reply to that "gibberish?"

Is there a question in there somewhere? If you're just going to parrot already debunked apologetics, there's not much I can really add.

Debunked?

This sort of reply acts a smokescreen. You respond in so many different ways, even down to correcting spelling or syntax that you can make it look like you have provided a proper counter argument. You have not. At one point you went into suffixes in detail and didn't even address the point of the passage you corrected! In the usual apologist manner, all you are doing is posting a wall of text, presumably so it is hard to scrutinise some of your more nonsensical assertions, or at least time consuming enough that people decide they can't be bothered. If we're going to endlessly quote one another, I need a pc instead of a phone or this becomes far too time consuming, so I'll address your 'argument' when I get home. However from this point on, maybe it would help to stay on subject and try to be concise?

Damn...Rekt Im really interested how his response will go, if he does.

Responded, and why are you here? You always like to say something and leave. It's always a one-to-two sentenced phrase. I already explained to you the reasoning behind the theological science. So please explain what the heck are you trying to do. If not, remain silent and leave.