You have no physical evidence for your religious beliefs
I'm an atheist, I have no religious beliefs.
I don't need evidence for beliefs I don't hold.
while I have the physical evidence of the Earth being 3/4 covered with water from Noah's Flood.
No, you do not.
With Adam and Eve, the evidence is we have the human nature of good and evil.
No. We have
your beliefs about the human nature. Your mere beliefs aren't facts just because you believe it.
Did you even read that article?
It doesn't say what you think it says.
In addition, as the dude himself says in the blog post, he's not a biologist.
It reeks of confirmation bias from beginning to end.
He also manages to completely misrepresent what "mitochondrial eve" and "y-chromosome" adam are REALLY all about.
Hint: no geneticist says that they were the only humans around. Moreover, both individuals lived thousands of years apart. They never met or knew eachother. By the time one of them was born, the other was dead for millenia already.
Human population,
as genetics show, was NEVER smaller then a couple of
thousand individuals.
Perhaps you should get your information from actual scientific sources instead of blog posts with obvious religious bias.
What do you have for abiogenesis?
*I* don't have anything, as I'm not a bio-chemist nore am I involved in that research.
The field of abiogenesis has a couple of interesting hypothesis. But why does that matter?
Spontaneous generation was proven pseudoscience already by Dr. Louis Pasteur.
So?
and the same applies for abiogenesis
No.
Abiogenesis is an ongoing study, a work in progress. Nobody so far has refuted it.
You are welcome to cite scientific papers in which you feel this happened though.
Don't forget to notify the many abiogenesis researchers around the world that they are apparantly beating a dead horse....
When are the real science deniers going to give up on Miller-Urey and primordial soup?
I bet you can't even explain what exactly the Miller-Urey experiment was about and what it resulted in.
Also, why are you yapping about this?
None of this has any relation to the validity or merrit of your religious creation myths.
In fact, for the sake of argument, I'll bend over backwards and pretend as if all of modern science is demonstrated wrong. Abiogenesis, evolution, plate tectonics, germ theory, atomic theory, ... let's just pretend it's all false for a second.
This doesn't advance your creationist myth for even an inch.
You still have all your work cut out for you.
You like to pretend as if if science is wrong, then your bible is correct by default.
That is, off course, hilariously invalid.
For your bible nonsense to be accepted as valid and accurate, you have to actually DEMONSTRATE these claims. You need evidence in support of those claims.
Showing idea X wrong doesn't make idea Y advance one bit. You still need to demonstrate idea Y.
You need actualy positive evidene in support of your claims.
We've been show by the scientific method that it's not scientific at all. Water is a universal solvent, so while it's necessary for life, one doesn't want it for abiogenesis. We also don't want O2 (oxygen) for Miller-Urey. The atheists and their scientists make up crap just to fit their religion.
Your ignorance on the subject is showing.
