ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
This seems a very odd argument.No. I realize you have a fantasy you can't begin to support but believe real hard. Religion!
Let's say that we agree: science is a religion. So, let's take a look at what my religion has achieved purely through practising what it teaches:
My religion has put a man on the moon, allows people to communicate over vast distances, travel at incredible speed, find a millions library's worth of information at the touch of a finger, provided food for billions, cured numerous diseases, doubled average life expectancy and fundamentally altered the way all developed civilisations function in only a few short generations.
So, if science is a religion, it's clearly the best one. Your religion loses, easily.
You seem extremely confused.If a blob of chemicals popped out of mom rather than a wonderful, fully formed, unique personality and person, well you might have a weak point.
Are you not aware that pregnancy and birth is essentially a 9-month process that transforms inert chemicals into a human child? If you understand and believe that, where is the issue with the possibility of abiogenesis?
I mean, surely it's harder to believe that inert chemicals can become a human child in just nine months than it is to believe inert chemicals can form simple, self-replicating cells in millions of years, right? Is that not your logic?
Last edited: