This is largely an argument from incredulity. Saying that you don't believe something is possible does not mean that it isn't. History is replete with examples of the seemingly-impossible becoming mainstream knowledge. Ain't quantum mechanics just zany stuff?
I never "argue from incredulity". But I appreciate the compliment.
I've come to recognize this evolutionese phrase for what it is: an acknowledgement that they're dead in the water, and would like to change the subject.
Fact is, you yourself said spontaneous generation was invalid. Overturning this isn't done by just claiming "anything's possible". The burden of proof is yours. Are you up to it?
If chemistry ain't your bag, then why are you essentially accusing the majority of chemists of being liars, or not knowing what they are talking about? What qualifies you to do this?
I don't think I've done this. What? Have chemists demonstrated that life creates itself while I wasn't looking? And managed to get the word out to the majority of their fellows too I see. This internet thing ain't keeping me informed.
Or maybe you're talking about some other point being discussed... Freezing ice more after it's frozen just leaves you with colder ice; rust stays rust as long as one cares to wait; what else was there?
Mix some organic chemicals with the snow, subject the lot to the conditions that existed on the early earth, leave it for millions of years, and who knows what might happen?
Most anybody knows: nothing remarkable. Maybe someone would be able to market the slush for bodybuilders? You know, some sort of weight-gain snowcone.
Or is this the new discovery I missed out on? No - you say "who knows what might happen?" If the majority of chemists knew, and you knew, you wouldn't be asking this.
As far as burden of proof goes, then it's entirely possible to test how a theory might not be true. Are you able to do this regarding abiogenesis, or otherwise come up with some proof that it is impossible? If not, then the matter reamins unresolved and in need of further study.
No. We have a solution. Evolutionists are just unhappy with it, and want another answer. There's no need to study something just to support their unscientific religion.
Men mentally levitating themselves to the moon is another issue considered impossible. People wanting it to be possible does not justify research.
Of course everyone's free to do as they please in their spare time...
Say, this "majority of chemists" I'm supposed to be calling liars wouldn't be that person with the anti-Bible website, would it? You 'member, the great scholar stirring up all that "controversy".
