Of course, there are others too stupid or pig-headed to even look at the evidence...I wonder if that's equally bizarre?
Sorry to be blunt, but "looking at" and "studying" are quite different things. There are reasons that the vast majority of those who study science (from the inside) believe they're on the right track. I suppose there are reasons that the vast majority of those who only "look at" science (from the outside, or more often from inside religious bias) do not. But those reasons are supported by nothing except an unwillingness to know other than what they've already decided to believe.
Quite parochial, really, but whatever.
I remember that the famed wit, Dorothy Parker, was once asked if she could use the word "horticulture" in a sentence. She replied, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
Please, science has been touting that they are on right track for 65 years.
If one actually reads the material, and follows the progress the track goes nowhere.
Many in the OOL community are now saying the bio chemical route is probably a dead end
For those 65 years the media has touted great breakthroughs and the ignorant public believes as you do.
However, if one reads the journals regarding these great breakthroughs, , most of the time they aren't regarded as such.
James Tour, a biochemist and eminent OOL researcher has written two books and made many presentations to groups of scientists and others regarding the non productive status quo and his frustration with the fact the OOL community will not address the real problem, biochemistry has failed in advancing significantly in identifying how abiogeneisis occurred.
You probably have never heard of him
Like most evolutionists, when you believe a cherished belief might actually be challengeable, you personally attack the challenger, parse words, split hairs, anything to discredit the messenger.
No problem.
Tell you what, why don`t you and I have a detailed conversation regarding abiogeneisis ? You will be able to showcase the vast knowled ge you say you have, you then 2ill really e able to showcase my ignorance and support your contention that I am a doofus.
The usual suspects will jump to your aid, and together you can really drag me through the mud.
Up for it ?
Just cite the science that has led you to believe abiogeneisis occurred and we will talk about it. Then I get to cite some science.
Or, would you just rather attack me personally, without proving any of your assertions ?