Selectedmarksman wrote:I don't have to do a thing, the global scientific community is already in agreement with me. You are the one at odds, here. Again, to follow your line of reasoning, Alchemy and Chemistry are similar concepts. That doesn't mean they are the same. Chemistry gets us plastics, alloys, batteries, medicines, and other useful thing. It works.
Interesting tactic with the feelings bit, doesn't change the facts though.
Also, I was saying it appears that you reject the scientific process (as you cling to Spontaneous Generation and fail to separate it from theories 2,500 years more advanced). That kind of mentality would result in no progress, thus the lack of the fruits of the scientific process. If you equate 'medicine' as practiced in the middle ages with modern medicine, feel free to get bled next time you develop a cold.
Dude, I don't "cling" to Spontaneous Generation. This is a strawman. If you can't tell, I believe in the direct creation of life by God.
Medicine has been proven to save lives and is based on hard science- my wife just underwent rabies prophylaxis treatment for a bat bite. Modern medical treatment is not an unproven theory with it's only observable "evidence" being a few nonliving self-replicating molecules. Nor does modern medicine owe anything to the unproven theories of SG/Abiogenesis. You said- "The origin of the Universe has absolutely nothing to do with Abiogenesis." Arguing from this standpoint of yours...if the origin of the Universe has nothing to do with Abiogenesis, then Modern Medicine has even less to do with unproven Spontaneous Generation/Abiogenesis theory. Spontaneous Generation and Abiogenesis hold certain similarities- THIS is the point that I was trying to argue. From my perspective they seem to be based on the implausable and the unbelievable.
No hard feelings. Honestly. I've read alot of your posts on here that show viewpoints which I happen to agree with. The idea that SG/Abiogenesis are unrelated theories, however, I vehemently disagree with.