When a field cannot follow the standard scientific model of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, repeatability, and predictive power, yet the public is told it is a settled fact, the effect mirrors gaslighting. Abiogenesis has never been observed, tested, repeated, or demonstrated in controlled conditions. Evolution at the macro level has never been produced in a lab, measured, or replicated according to the scientific method. When people claim these ideas are “proven,” they shift the burden of proof, appeal to authority, and replace experiments with stories. That treatment trains the public to doubt their own common sense that real science requires observable data, testable steps, and repeatable outcomes. Calling speculation “fact” does not make it science. It only pressures people to accept a narrative that has never met the scientific standard.

What is the driving question concerning abiogenesis? When will abiogenesis fail to support itself? The more scientific research, the more complicated life becomes. At what point does the information become an abiogenesis trap when it collapses in on itself? Explain to me what will break abiogenesis in the eyes of its believers. How long can secular science and humanism hold on to abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis: The Trap of Atheism So how does atheism fit into our world, or more accurately, into our worldview? Atheists often proclaim that their lack of belief in a god is simply a harmless view, and therefore, they do not make a truth claim. Yet is that really the case? Let us now take a look at how atheism really operates as a civilizational operating system, how it governs beliefs without a transcendent Creator. Join me as I conduct this analysis to expose its structure, control points, and survival flaws. So let's set the stage; we will focus on logic alone.

Why I Am Writing This The reason I am writing directly to you is the persistent framing of this debate as settled science, which it is not. I am not attacking people. I am examining methods. Methods, not reputation, consensus, or comfort, determine the success or failure of science. When claims drift from testable evidence into narrative protection, the scientific method is no longer being used.

This is a question specifically intended for atheists. Answer yes or no when possible; if you cannot, state why clearly. First, define your position. Are you denying God's existence or just arguing as if He doesn't exist? If you choose not to assert a truth claim, elucidate the significance of your worldview in a truth debate. Now, explain the initial causes. In your worldview, what is the source of matter, energy, space, time, and the laws that govern them? If you answer “no cause,” explain why brute facts are acceptable for atheism but not for theism. If you answer “infinite regress,” explain why an endless chain of causes is rational while a necessary being is not.

Here, an atheist writes… “There are a lot of as yet unexplained yet observed phenomena; the difference is that the lack of explanation results in inquiry through the scientific process rather than pulling answers out of a hat.” So let us respond. You are confusing two different things. Inquiry is good. I welcome inquiries. But abiogenesis and macroevolution are not “unexplained observations.” They are explanations that have already failed their own tests. When a model makes predictions and every core prediction collapses, the scientific response is not “keep the model and wait.” The scientific response is “the model is wrong.”

As I said before, you are only promoting your myths, not science. First off, on your claim of contradiction about abiogenesis (magic) and evolution. There is no contradiction. Saying abiogenesis (the false hope of atheists) and evolution are separate questions is a statement of scope, not independence. They are distinct fields that answer different questions, but they are logically linked in a naturalistic framework. Evolution presupposes that a self-replicating, information-bearing organism already exists. Abiogenesis is invoked to explain how that system arose without design. You can separate them for study, but not for explanation. Without abiogenesis, naturalistic evolution has no starting point. Without evolution, abiogenesis explains nothing beyond a hypothetical first cell. A complete naturalistic story requires both. Pointing out that one has not been demonstrated does not deny that the other may, and I do say, may operate within limits.

Question? Why is it so hard to determine what the last common ancestor of chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans looked like ten million years ago?

I often talk to people about the scientific method, abiogenesis, and evolution. Many hold strong views on these topics. They see abiogenesis and evolution as settled truths, the only options since they reject God and the Genesis account. I point out the flaws in this thinking. Let me explain my view step by step. First, recall the scientific method. Scientists observe the world, form questions, and make hypotheses. They test these ideas with experiments and gather data. If the data fits, the hypothesis gains support. If not, they revise or discard it. No idea becomes an absolute fact. Theories like gravity or relativity explain facts well, but they stay open to new evidence. Science builds knowledge through doubt and testing, not final proofs.

Arguing with an atheist is like watching someone build a house out of fog. They speak with confidence, but the moment you push for evidence, the whole thing disappears. That happened again with CB. He believes in abiogenesis. He believes in evolution. He believes both ideas are proven when they are still nothing more than faith wrapped in lab coats. When he felt the ground slipping under him, he tried to hit me with black holes. That was his big move. Not biology. Not chemistry. Not evidence. Black holes. It was a clean deflection. It was not an answer. I decided to let him walk through his own logic and see where it led. What followed was a perfect illustration of how some atheists argue. Loud claims. No sources. No math. No peer-reviewed work. Just confidence without knowledge. This article breaks down the exchange. You will see what CB claimed, what the data shows, and why the peer-reviewed literature leaves no room for his version of the story.