People reject evolution

No, this would not imply what you suggest, it would imply that people with a higher education just have more/better critical thinking/logic/analysis skills and can use these tools to better decide for themselves what the truth might be.

I actually don't agree that going to college makes you any smarter, unless you take it to heart and apply yourself, challenge your assumptions, develop a critical eye for logic and proper argument, etc. and not just "muddle through" to get a piece of paper.

Ignorant: 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.

Idiot: Main Entry: id·i·ot
Pronunciation: 'i-dE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiOtEs one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own -- more at SUICIDE
1 usually offensive : a person affected with idiocy
2 : a foolish or stupid person
- idiot adjective

Nowhere does it say in either of those definitions "missing link"

Evolution never proclaimed there was no creator.

Kevn,

Please answer my question.

Why do you get a cold every year?

Even though I'm not interested in correcting Kevn on his misunderstandings of science anymore, I feel that abiogenesis should be presented in a more accurate light.

Simply put, Abiogenesis would be the theory (or in more laymen's terms, the best explanation for a given process or fact thus far) that binds together chemistry and microbiology. It is actually somewhat an "Oh duh, of course" kind of thing once you learn even a little about it.

So to explain it a little, you have a thoroughly tested set of rules for chemistry. In that set of rules there are many ways to bind together various elements. However, each element has a specific default way it binds to a given other element (or not). In this fashion we get certain molecules you may be familiar with today; like distilled water, carbon dioxide, etc.

Abiogenesis would then be the extension of these rules to micro-biology. Micro-organisms can be incredibly small. Obviously they are going to be bigger than a given molecule, but not much bigger. So essentially, they have to live by the same rules of chemistry. This means that a micro organism might capture a free nitrogen atom with an oxygen atom producing a nitrous oxide type arrangement connected to organism. (Even if we wouldn't call such an arrangement nitrous oxide because it would obviously be part of a larger molecule).

So if you're still following along, what amounts to a simple protein will indeed occur without any helping hands whatsoever based on simple non-organic chemical rules. More complex proteins take more time to form, but will indeed form at a rate of 100% of the time in an appropriate environment containing the proper variety of elements. At which point we begin to apply the various larger rules of microbiology to them.

I think somewhat the whole problem is that humans have an odd notion of what is life or non-life. They're all pretty much the same. Every atom in your body (even those in your brain) obeys the same chemical rules that initially formed what people seem to want to call 'life'. It is a somewhat odd line to draw between the two when they are not truly seperate.

What I find extremely unlikely, for instance, is the notion that vastly complex forms should somehow be assembled or designed in such a fashion to instantly go from the atomic scale to the large molecular scale. This is the notion that people will attempt to ascribe to abiogenesis, but it really just demonstrates their ignorance of chemistry and biology.

Some idiot on the internet even proposed a crazy notion called 'irreducible complexity'. I'd agree with him that you can't reduce the complexity of a molecular organism within the science of microbiology. I mean, that's obvious. You'd be in chemistry if you did. So it's not that the micro-organism isn't reducible, it's that you have to reduce it to, or with, the appropriate science.

We could even reduce further to the component parts of an atom or beyond that, the component parts of the component parts (the quantum). I think that's a different topic of discussion though.

So in summary, I really don't know what to say to religdiots except that knowing the subjects involved might help.

I don't. I get one about every 5 years or so.
Your point would be to suggest the cold germ is evloving. If you are right, at some point the germ will lose all it's information, because it changes by losing data, not adding it.

I agree.

That's your spin, mine is the opposite. Still a spin.

Did I miss where you responded to the "are you a scientist" question, or did you ignore that question so that you could make up how things work, as in this example?

I never claimed to be a scientist. Are you a scientist? If so, where did you get your "facts"? From books and university professors who were indoctrinated by other professors who were indoctrinated by other professors?

Your faith in these people and their books is by far more faithful than Billybob with the Bible.

STOP BEING UNREASONABLE TACO!!!11

wha? my faith with the Bible? I'm not a typical christian if thats what you mean.

Why are you attacking Billybob's faith?

because I'm a heretic

No one expects the Inquisition!

you are a) self-defining 'true science', and b) insinuating that you have a edcuational background in 'true science' by useing 'we'.

kind of deceptive?

I think this would be a more honest approach:

abiogenesis has never ever been observed. Biogenisis, the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, has be observed.

I'd then be willing to debate that statement - but I won't engage in a debate in which you lay false claims to terms like 'true science'.

oh I found Kevn's picture the other day

Yes you are typical, Christians aren't monolithic, we all have differing beliefs.

BTW, it wasn't an attack, as if you reject the Bible, it was a point made, his faith in these things outweigh your faith in the Bible, as I see it.

But I haven't even expressed my views on this subject - you've now taken a leap of faith to a) assume my opinion, b) assume my sources for it, and c) declare how much weight i put in them.

Man, you really live in a world of pre-judging things.

False. It evolves by changing data. No data is "lost"; it's shifted, changed, or otherwise modified via RANDOM mutation.

hmm since you do know so much about my beliefs

but since you brought it up,

I don't read the bible, I go to church for the fellowship and social aspect, I get a much better relationship with god on my own without the preacher telling me how to belief. The bible is not "holy writ" for me, it is merely a guidebook. I beleive in the christian god, I just have a hard time dealing with his fan club.

True science is what is known to be scientific fact along with all the theories, hypothesis etc. But abiogenesis isn't science at all, because it can never be tested. There is no evidence for it. It stands on the same legs as creationism. Only Creationism has more evidence, and is more credible.

If you think abiogenesis is good science, please provide the evidence. Provide a method of testing it. If you can't, it's not science.

I gathered all that from your posts.

Prove it

source please.