Apologetics Press: Final Round (I promise)

This is an email I got from our old buddy at AP, Kyle Butt (real name):

Hello Ryan, Thanks for writing. No, I am not wrong. Every experiment ever doneverifies that life does not arise from non-living chemicals. You mightnot be convinced, but that is not because the evidence is notconvincing. It is because you are choosing to deny the truth. And you are choosing to apply different standards to your thoughts on Abiogenesis than you apply to almost every other area in your life. Fora refutation of the abiogenesis idea you might check out Anthony Flew's new book "There is a God" or you could read:(link deleted)

If you are honest, youwell know that the "self-replicating" entities projected by many stillfall far short of life, as Robert Hazen has shown in his variouswritings and lectures on the origins of life. You would lose your money.Thanks for writing.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt


I did not send him an email back. I think it is important for us to note the dishonesty. I hand him his ass about vestigial organs, he goes off into the origin of life. This is very typical of creationists: swing from one subject to another until you can find something your opponent doesn't know. When that happens say, "Aha! God must've done it!"

What bothers me even more is that he referenced Anthony Flew. Anthony Flew is a Deist, not a christian. Even so, he was a very vigilant atheist from his youth. I once read that he ran away from home to get away from religion. He wrote several books and spent a great deal of his life defending atheism. And now, in his later years, he has converted to deism: believing in a god who set the world in motion, never to be heard from again. What is disturbing is that it seems christian apologists are using him in his old age and writing books through him. See the New York Times Article for more. Flew said that he converted because abiogenesis was improbable, but later conceded, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." Richard Carrier added, in his article about Flew, "Nor has he examined any of the literature of the past five or ten years on the science of life's origin, which has more than answered his call for "constructing a naturalistic theory" of the origin of life. This is not to say any particular theory has been proven--rather, there are many viable theories fitting all the available evidence that have yet to be refuted."

Well, I've gone off topic enough. I'm sure everyone sees what dishonest zealots creationists are, especially those at AP.