Quote:1.) science isnt about "credibility" its about verifiable duplicatable results using the scientific method.


2.) you dont do yourself any favors when u dont acutually engage a topic with personal insight and instead rely on the reputations of others.


3.) as i have stated before my position is a diffetent CONCLUSION based on the whole of the scientific record.


4.) your charecterization that the evidence is "incomplete" is misleading because you imply incomplete but trending in your favor. As i have previously stated cirrent scientific lae is ANTITHETICAL to the spontaneous generation of energy or abiogenesis. If you deny those two basic FACTS then it is u sir who looses credibility.

You cannot really be this dense.

 

The greatest scientific minds disagree with you on your "analysis" of the science. They are more trustworthy than you. Why? Because they are scientists and you are arrogant to think you are smarter then them. The science is trending in that direction. That you can't see that is your problem. Science does not care. 

 

You have a conclusion with zero evidence supporting it. You never had any and you still don't. Attempting to have a conversation about a scientific matter with a person who has a reached a conclusion based on nothing is pointless. How should I engage in that conversation other than asking again for a single shred of evidence? I mean I have only asked, what four times now? 

---