Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

reply to post by refuse_orders


I'm not reading anything, you are incapable of simple reading comprehension. His OWN words convict him on this issue, and not just one book, but two.

Secondly, in case you are unaware, ad hominem attacks only carry weight in kintergarden arguments on the playground.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Wow so you out right refuse to read anything else on the subject...

There was no ad hominem attack in my post, I am not saying your incorrect because of comments in your profile, I am saying you are incorrect for what you are saying though.

I was also pointing out what you have just confirmed, you hold fundamentalist views that wont be swayed even with evidence presented to you. You wont even read it your that ignorant.

You might like to check this link out if you don't understand ad hominem.(although maybe not)
Wiki: Ad hominem

Also you failed to answer my question. If Darwin was racist does that make any difference to the theory of evolution? Tell you what I will answer it for you, again... NO.

Another day, another troll. Ignorance denied.

As far as it goes, many famous figures were racists, or morally questionable.
Einstein, Gandhi, Franklin, were lechers. Churchhill , Lindbergh, Roosevelt, and possibly Lincoln were racists.

Not saying that this excuses them, by no means does it. However, neither does it invalidate what they did.

Beyond which, Darwin was the principal proposer of the theory of evolution, it has changed and been worked and studied a good deal by many other scientists since then.
So, whatever his faults, he has impact as the founder, but not a active role in it as it's present state.

Originally posted by refuse_orders
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Wow so you out right refuse to read anything else on the subject...

There was no ad hominem attack in my post, I am not saying your incorrect because of comments in your profile, I am saying you are incorrect for what you are saying though.

I was also pointing out what you have just confirmed, you hold fundamentalist views that wont be swayed even with evidence presented to you. You wont even read it your that ignorant.

You might like to check this link out if you don't understand ad hominem.(although maybe not)
Wiki: Ad hominem

Also you failed to answer my question. If Darwin was racist does that make any difference to the theory of evolution? Tell you what I will answer it for you, again... NO.

Another day, another troll. Ignorance denied.

Wow, where to start...

1. "Refuse to read anything else on the subject" - I actually DID read it after I posted that, and the website spends half the time pointing out racist comments by Christians in the past AS IF 2 wrongs make a right???? (Another fallacy of logic) Racism is disgusting no matter how and or where it is. God created ALL men equally, and ALL races came from the family of NOAH, hello, the point should be apparent there.

2. It was an ad hominem attack, my beliefs of creationism or evolution are irrrelevant, I'm not arguing the validity of his theory nor am I advocating creationism in this thread. I'm commenting on his racist writings.

3. I'm ignorant of what? If someone is ignorant of something that means they have never been taught it. Ignorant means 'never taught', it has nothing to do with someones ability to LEARN. (Btw, it's "you're" meaning "you are", "your" is a personal pronoun meaning "belonging to". Now THAT is something you have demonstrated being "ignorant" of.)

4. Finally, I never said it DID have anything to do with his theory of evolution. That is a "Straw Man Argument". Look it up if you have questions.

Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion other than childish fallacies of logic???

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Im gonna reply to me, cause its the same kinda of way of debating for blind faith...lol, and Ill keep doing that on this thread, see how it works to argue for in ones beliefs only, instead of researching to find truth.

Yeah I remember reading about this LEMUR when it was first discovered and national geographic wrote a big ta do about it.

One would think evolutionists would quit doing this if it is such a fact, why keep trying to prove it? Does this prove anything?

Similarities mean nothing in biology, I thought you atheist's in the science community would have known this by now. You see you still don't have a mechanism as to HOW these alleged changes happened.

I have told you DNA doesn't work that way, we now KNOW the micro evolutionary adaptations, something we have always agreed with are already coded in the DNA. That means they are all there to start with and have limits to them so how you get past this is a mystery.

By the way, the national geographic wrote a somewhat of a retraction on the back some time after that silly dead lemur they found was identified as JUST a lemur

Here is what I don't understand about people, if you are going to talk about evolution, at least get the most current data. The "stuff" you have all been saying is no longer considered biologically feasible, I mean it JUST CAN'T WORK that way. I told you even your own top scientists NOW KNOW your theory is as we have always said it is, JUNK

Revolt in the Darwin Camp

March 7, 2008 — With minor skirmishes, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (natural selection acting on random genetic mutations) has held sway in evolutionary theory since the 1930s. Now, discontent with the pre-eminence of natural selection is leading to a major skirmish between evolutionists to be fought at a conference this summer. Susan Mazur calls this the “Woodstock of Evolution” in The Scoop Independent News.

It’s not Yasgur’s Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let’s call them “the Altenberg 16” – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It’s pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accomodate [sic] “other” new phenomena.

So the theory Charles Darwin gave us, which was dusted off and repackaged 70 years ago [the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis], seems about to be reborn as the “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis”.

Mazur personally interviewed many of the combatants and posted their pictures in her article. Some of them are determined to hang on to the old theory, convinced this is much ado about nothing. Others, to varying degrees, have risked their careers to challenge the orthodoxy. Few are willing to state their challenges publicly, and some fear excommunication. Stanley Salthe, for instance, said he can’t get published in the mainstream media for his views, e.g.:

Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated... the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations.... Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen.

This was Just last year kids!

BUT THERE IS MORE!

Ya see it seems the top 15 or 16 evolutionist's really have NO IDEA how all this takes place and when you consider the fact that we have now traced humans using DNA to our original starting point where man first appeared guess you'll never guess where they ended up.

The Middle east! Imagine That! and isn't just like The Bible to suggest such divine truth. Yes , yes I am proud to say, yes I am. One should HAVE so much Blind Faith as those dumb fundies eh Kids!

What could possibly replace natural selection?

Stuart Pivar is toying with the idea that body form is an outgrowth of the egg cell membrane structure. His critics deny that this is a complete or fruitful hypothesis; it is devoid of empirical evidence, they complain. Pivar is another maverick having trouble getting his ideas published.

Gee where I come from, no one ever mistakes a FACT for a NEW FACT. I mean if evolution is a fact then why re-invent the wheel! LOL HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!

RE-VAMP THE "HOLE DAMN THANG JASPER!" A Paradigm shift is on its way.



Coming Soon! The New Improved Theory Of EVO ILLUSION!

Richard Milner describing the late Stephen Jay Gould, who along Niles Eldredge had criticized selectionism (or adaptationism) in the 1990s. Milner described Gould as “a popular articulator of Darwinian evolution to a new generation, while privately, his creative and rebellious mind sought to move beyond it.” Their hypothesis of “punctuated equilibria” never quite gained traction – the idea that most of evolutionary history involves stasis, with rapid evolutionary jumps in between. Milner continued, “Gould took issue with those who used natural selection carelessly as a mantra, as in the evidence-free ‘just-so stories’ concocted out of thin air by mentally lazy adaptationists.” Gould’s critics, on the other hand, viewed punctuated equilibria as deficient in mechanisms that could generate functional innovation.

Traditionalists like Richard Lewontin think that no new extended synthesis is necessary, and that the mavericks are just trying to garner prestige for themselves. To him, all that is necessary to prove natural selection is to ask yourself, “do you survive?” Whether or not the mavericks will gain traction at Altenberg, it seems clear that there is war in the Darwin Camp. About the only thing they agree on is that intelligent design and creationism are bad, bad, bad. ID ideas are off the table. Looking in from the outside at this skirmish, the pro-ID Discovery Institute blog Evolution News and Views had some fun. This article gives the lie to the NCSE’s claim that there is “no controversy” about evolution, wrote Robert Crowther. It also demonstrates the risk any critics of Darwinism have for getting Expelled.

The papers for the July conference have already been submitted and will be published, ironically, for Darwin Day in 2009. If Neo-Darwinism is in so much trouble, is an emerging new consensus in the offing? It appears that all Mazur could find were a dirty-laundry list of problems, and a preliminary airing of ethereal suggestions. Regardless of what transpires at the conference, Crowther observed, “a paradigm shift is on the way.”

The Creationist response to the atenberg 16 was well deserved,

This is called giving your opponents enough rope to hang themselves. We didn’t have to say any of the following:

• The central story of Darwin is wrong in a way that can’t be repaired. (Mazur summarizing Fodor) 99.99% of the population have no idea what the theory of natural selection is. (Fodor)
  
  
• The import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. (Salthe)
  
  
• There is reluctance to scientists being discouraged about taking a chance on ideas originating outside their peer group plus their dependence on government grants – which are tied-in to support for natural selection. (Pivar)
  
  
• Self-organization mingles with natural selection in barely understood ways to yield the magnificence of our teeming biosphere. (Kauffman)
  
  
• Astrobiology doesn’t exist. What are the laws? (Fodor)
  
  
  
• Natural selection is used carelessly as a mantra, as in the evidence-free “just-so stories” concocted out of thin air by mentally lazy adaptationists. (Gould)
  
  
  

All we needed to do was hold up the microphone to them after announcing to the crowds, “Hear ye, hear ye! Come on over and listen to the secrets of the universe! Hear the world’s experts tell where you came from! Find out why this theory must be taught in public schools to the exclusion of anything else!

Learn why Darwin Day should become an international holiday!”

Now can we say, “Teach the controversy”?

It's all right here kids, now get caught up so you can fall behind again when science keeps proving Darwin was a dimwit
www.scoop.co.nz...


albeit anything close to "Intelligent Design" is off the table (wouldn't want to go thinking the invisble guy in the sky happens to be seen where ever you look now do we) I am sure they will come up with something folks and this time next year we will be at it again and all this stuff, you will dismiss as "Science is self correcting"

Especially when it is self refuting and shoots itself in the foot every time it opens its mouth.

Now what was that you were saying about blind faith?

Ill get to your lemur quandry also and then on to Jaxon Roberts my esteemed ex-xian hehe I see he has some splainin ta doooo


Cheers!


[edit on 22-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by Stylez


Here is what I don't understand about people, if you are going to talk about evolution, at least get the most current data.

Originally posted by StylezJohann Beringer published Lithographiae Wirceburgensis, a scientific treatise describing a remarkable collection of 'fossils', which turned out to be an elaborate palaeontological fraud.

Hmmm....Johann Beringer certainly isn't current and given the period he was in he would have been 'religious' and into 'snake oil'.

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Stylez


Here is what I don't understand about people, if you are going to talk about evolution, at least get the most current data.

Originally posted by StylezJohann Beringer published Lithographiae Wirceburgensis, a scientific treatise describing a remarkable collection of 'fossils', which turned out to be an elaborate palaeontological fraud.

Hmmm....Johann Beringer certainly isn't current and given the period he was in he would have been 'religious' and into 'snake oil'.

NOOOO He was "Religious!" OMG! what a travesty! lets hope he wasn't black or gay also! Geez guy way to look at it "scientifically"

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by Stylez


Here is what I don't understand about people, if you are going to talk about evolution, at least get the most current data.

Originally posted by StylezJohann Beringer published Lithographiae Wirceburgensis, a scientific treatise describing a remarkable collection of 'fossils', which turned out to be an elaborate palaeontological fraud.

Hmmm....Johann Beringer certainly isn't current and given the period he was in he would have been 'religious' and into 'snake oil'.

Like the clever way you mixed the context of the second quote which was referring to fraud which happens to date back to ernst haekel and then use that as if you were taking it from the same post casting me as if I am contradicting myself in the first quote which is in the context of modern science in response to entirely different issue and context.

Lets see, between you and the guy that just lies all the time, I am so happy all this data we have submitted suggesting evolution is not the most ethical science, can be further substantiated by the sneaky little stunts like you just tried to pull.

Good Game!







[edit on 22-9-2009 by Stylez]

I'm glad you liked it!
I thought you would be pleased that I had been paying attention to your posts?

reply to post by refuse_orders


Interesting. I hadn't seen this before and found the watchmaker analogy very interesting. It doesn't seem to prove or disprove anything though.

The questions remain for the layman like myself.

1. What was the beginning?
2. If God then what was god before he created everything? If the big bang then what was before that?
3. Can't believing in god and believing in evolution go hand in hand?
4. Can't a highly regarded scientist believe that god created the universe?
5. What is the purpose of life?
6. What defines evolution? Is a culture of humans who grow darker skinned over hundreds of years evolution? Why not?
7. Why isn't a mutation evolution if it makes the "virus for example" harder to kill?
8. how old is the universe and how do we know? Is this system of measurment fallable? Wouldn't it be better to have multipe systems to measure the age of the universe?
9. Can you believe in evolution and not darwinism?

hmmmmmm

reply to post by Stylez


Stylez, feel free to post links to sources on my public profile page in the comments section. I have a growing list I am creating, and any additions would be appreciated.

Another award winning post Stylez.

I will yield and let you clean the floor with Jaxon Roberts.

But first I want to tell Jaxon Roberts that the recapitulation theory was abandoned as a fraud way way back in the early 1900's, yet it is still being taught in schools, to the embarrassment of the top evolutionists who know it's a fraud. And you had the brass to defend it without providing a source?
Oh! 99% of mutations are harmful....but 1% is ok and keeps evolution going ...LOL. The odds against spontaneous random generation of a single polypeptide just went up significantly, and then consider the 2000 needed in consecutive order to make one simple single cell......ya I know it's called abiogenesis or micro evolution....call it what you want, but it didn't happen. Of the 1% helpful adaptive mutations you claim there are, that does not instantly prove or validate speciation.

Your talk about destroying arguments makes you appear cocky, self arrogating and narcissistic. It is what it is, and I'm not name calling or attacking you. I suggest a little humility and respect, and stick with the facts Jax.

Evolution is not science and science is not evolution.
Evolution is a delusion and a lie.
Science is the study of all that has been created.

The sad part is, for every person that sees these threads and learns something, there are a billion people who are too lazy and/or they are filled with too much religious bias and bigotry to research for themselves and ask questions.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Ad Hominem much?

Care to compare his to yours jaxon roberts, I can post em up if you like? Thing is, it isn't customary for creationists to call everyone who disagrees with them a bigot and a hater in topics like this, so you might want to think about that.

It only shows a lack of Class...

Gee? Didn't I say that to you about a week ago in another thread?

Now, on to the "meat" of your position. The old 'odds are against it' argument. First of all, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Darwin or Evolution. It is an argument against abiogenesis, which is NOT part of Evolution.

Evolutionists are fond of pointing to carbon, water and other atoms and simple molecules as “building blocks of life.” suggesting a subtext of progress.

If the building blocks are present, the statement suggests that they will “build” all by themselves into life, given the right circumstances.

The reason evolutionists tip toe out of this argument is because once they are in it, we can just assume that since silicon is a building block of computers, finding silicon on another planet is a sure bet computers will eventually be found. Think it isn't the same logic? Then you explain it. I'd LOVE to hear it.

oxygenation events in ancient oceans sparked spread of complex life we are told by evolutionists. Would the same thing be said of silicon sparking the spread of computers?

NOT without an intelligent hand guiding it it won't and yes the probability as you say is probable is a false assumption. Calcs ranging that high over the tenth power are considered by mathmatically impossible. From the smallest of cells to the largest of planets, evolution tries to prove everything, yet proves nothing. More holes are revealed.

Is it possible for a rock to come to life? Could a chicken grow from a lump of coal? Such questions are silly. However, this is in essence what the theory of evolution teaches.

This is to you creationists also, Do not allow evolutionists to dodge the “origin of matter” question. Many assert that the origin of life is in no way related to the appearance of living matter. Don't let that stunt stand, but be glad they said it when showing them the evolution they have been taught is inferior to what they need to know.

“Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life” Theodosius Dobzhansky (“Changing Man,” Science, January 1967).

Here is where evolutionist get check mated everytime they attempt to answer this so be advised: Louis Pasteur proved that life can only come from life and does NOT come from non life. So this presents a real big problem for evolution you see? If they are going to assume their was a point that life started from non life, then they had better go back to school because it doen't work that way my friend. You either prove it or you prove louis pasteur was fulla crap. Now whats it gonna be? If life came from life then evolution has to explain that life it came from all the way back to??

Yeah ya see what I mean. They don't wanna go there because they are scared they are gonna run right smack into the very thing they made evolution to explain away.

GOD





[edit on 22-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by aorAki
I'm glad you liked it!
I thought you would be pleased that I had been paying attention to your posts?

Well I can't knock your sense of humor lol naah no hard feelings,

you?

reply to post by Stylez


I think some of these people should thank you for your highly informative posts. Many of these spoon fed youngsters were not even taught how to do research. They got the evolution lie rammed down their throats to the exclusion of other possible explanations to the point that they will defend their beliefs to the death, even when there is evidence to the contrary all around them.....such as the three-billion-lettered program found in DNA which tells the cell what to do....which evolutionists want us to believe just randomly popped into existence along with a living cell one day.....and then went through a process of random consecutive mutations .....at least 500 said to be required.... for speciation to take place.

For those who don't know, speciation, is the theoretical process involving species dividing into two new species after a series of at least 500 consecutive random helpful mutations, which there is no proof of ever happening.

With Jaxon Roberts having enlightened us by agreeing that 99% of mutations are harmful, what is the chance of having 500 consecutive non harmful random mutations? Nil, NaNa, Zilch, Zero.

Yale University physicist, Harold Morowitz, calculated the odds for spontaneous generation of a single cell bacteria. Morowitz considered a soup of living bacteria. If the soup was heated until all the chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance are one in 10 to the 100 billionth power. The odds are hundreds of millions of times greater than the number of electrons estimated to be in the known Universe.

Originally posted by John Matrix

as the three-billion-lettered program found in DNA which tells the cell what to do....which evolutionists want us to believe just randomly popped into existence along with a living cell one day.....and then went through a process of random consecutive mutations .....at least 500 said to be required.... for speciation to take place.

Well last year they were told not to use the word "random" yet they still do but cosmololgists and mathmaticians say NOTHING is random and since math is a pure science, darwinists are like the borg, adapting.

lol

You are right they can't prove the 500 mutations much less the trillion more it would require just to scratch the surface. We are the most complex thing in the universe. Life is NO accident and we all have a reason we are here.

Ill tell you what they CAN prove however, and that is the extraordinary ability for DNA to correct itself where if you get one mutation the next one is near impossible ot get by much less to become fixed in the dna.

This is just some of the many reasons the atenberg 16 and even dawkins has been distancing himself fron using the old mechanism of mutation because if he does he would sound like an idiot.

SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

(Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method )

1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )

In the fossil record we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )

2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any

human experimenter (Dobzhansky )

3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )

4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )

RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )

2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )

3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )

4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )

5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).


(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University, Nobel Prize for Chemistry


CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Micro-evolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of micro-evolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt


(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change

in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things are the most complex functioning systems in the universe. Science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal. The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992



"Human-Chimp Gene Gap Widens from Tally of Duplicate Genes
There's a bigger genetic jump between humans and chimps than previously believed

by JR Minkel




CHIMP GENE GAP GROWS: Using a new measure of genetic similarity--the number of copies of genes that two species have in common--researchers report that chimps and humans share only 94 percent of their genes, not the 98 to 99 percent frequently cited.

A lot more genes may separate humans from their chimp relatives than earlier studies let on. Researchers studying changes in the number of copies of genes in the two species found that their mix of genes is only 94 percent identical. The 6 percent difference is considerably larger than the commonly cited figure of 1.5 percent. By Aaron Logan, from

www.bio.indiana.edu...

I should send you some new papers (peer reviewed) that shatter the telomere bonded chromosome hypothesis Ken Miller is always bragging about suggesting chimps and humans having a common ancestor. (they never mention what the ancestor is, you ever notice that? lol)

Ken Miller fancies himself as a thiestic evolutionist. Where I come from they call that an "Oxy-moron" get it?


[edit on 22-9-2009 by Stylez]

This mathematical proof is completely wrong. It is suposed to deal with abiogenesis not evolution. Abiogenesis is not proven and therefore is not taught as fact. And evolution and abiogenesis are NOT random.

Originally posted by Stylez

Originally posted by aorAki
I'm glad you liked it!
I thought you would be pleased that I had been paying attention to your posts?

Well I can't knock your sense of humor lol naah no hard feelings,

you?

None whatsoever...

Originally posted by refuse_orders

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.

As for this quote, I'm just astonished, who ever wrote this is insane.

I have heard the same theory before about Darwin being into eugenics. Allegedly he was in on this with the Wedgwood family (I believe) and that they would intermarry to prolong their "great" bloodline.

I have never had the chance to research this further but it is interesting.

Originally posted by John Matrix
With Jaxon Roberts having enlightened us by agreeing that 99% of mutations are harmful, what is the chance of having 500 consecutive non harmful random mutations? Nil, NaNa, Zilch, Zero.

Suppose there are 100 animals in the population that get a mutation each generation. (there would be more but just to simplify the math)

The one with a helpful mutation will be more likely to survive and reproduce because of the helpful mutation.That mutation will be passed on to many offspring. If it's helpful enough those offspring with the mutation may comprise a larger percentage of the population eventually.

Then the process repeats, next time with a different mutation.

What's so impossible about that?

Originally posted by Stylez
Life is NO accident and we all have a reason we are here.

And what is that reason?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0c7f70b48d00.jpg[/atsimg]

The one on the end doesn't seem too sure

Originally posted by Maslo
This mathematical proof is completely wrong. It is suposed to deal with abiogenesis not evolution. Abiogenesis is not proven and therefore is not taught as fact. And evolution and abiogenesis are NOT random.

Abiogenesis is micro evolution.
Distancing yourself from abiogenesis does nothing for your argument, because the odds against macroevolution are enormously higher.

Any reasonable person can see evolution is absurd. You are in denial.