So This is the “Real” Theory of Abiogenesis, Eh?

I've written before about the 7 Guesses on the Origin of Life. On another occasion, I wrote about scientists excitement of finding amino acids on meteors. I've talked about abiogenesis many times on my blog. The simple fact of the matter is that scientists really have no evidence showing how the supposed first life form began. Every so-called “theory” they have is conjecture. Actually, even conjecture is too generous a word – it's really story telling. They're making up possible scenarios about how life could come from non-life but, thus far, they haven't thought of any that actually work.

In light of their long history of failed guesses about abiogenesis, evolutionists are left with no other alternative than to criticize creationists for bringing it up. The usual claim is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Another tactic they sometimes take is to make a straw man out of the creationists views of abiogenesis. This cartoon (I'm not going to dignify it by saying it's a graph) compares the “Creationist idea of abiogenesis” to the “Real theory of abiogenesis.”

Now, I always try my best to keep up with evolution in the news but I must have missed something. Since when do scientists have a “real theory” about abiogenesis? Did they take a vote on this or something?  It sounds more than a little presumptuous to say this is somehow the "real" theory when there are some many competing theories being tossed about by scientists.  It's even more ridiculous when you consider that we haven't yet discovered a successful pathway from non-living chemicals to life.  How can they even claim this is the path the first cells must have taken?

Obviously, they're being a little loose with the word “theory” again (something they usually complain about creationists doing). It's simply just another “guess.” Ah, but this is the “real” guess. It even says so in the title! This is not the ridiculous “idea” held by creationists! And even though there is not one shred of evidence for their guess of abiogenesis, it's still the “scientific” model because... well, because it's not the view held by creationists!

Sometimes it's difficult to take evolutionists seriously. Just where do they get off saying this is the "real" theory of abiogenesis?  They usually make bad arguments but I can see they're at least sincere most of the time. When they make illustrations like this, though, I'm not sure they're even sincere. Oh, let's face it – they're not being sincere. When they invent things like this, they're just plain lying.