The wealth of esoteric knowledge behind the nonsensical pronouncements.

In his last post in the closing Abiogenesis thread Crashfrog is suggesting that there is a wealth of esoteric knowledge I am incapable to fathom hiding behind the pronouncements of the leading luminaries in consensus cosmology that I in my stupidity hold to be rather absurd.Since the thread is closing it leaves one wondering what that hidden science so out of reach of the lowly commoners like myself might be after all? He did not specify what that clever science behind the seeming gibberish was exactly. He also said that I had no view. Here is my view for his information:
I maintain that I can see very well through the fallacious logic behind Mr. Hawking's statements and that when the Lucatian fellow says that: "Because there is such a law as gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing", he is simply crapping at his learned mouth and there is no esoteric knowledge hidden in any of it beyond what could be found in the teachings of St. Augustine who said that the Universe was created not in time but with time and so on.Hawking fundamentally is no advance on St. Augustine is my view. I can tear St. Augustine's position to shreds and when I do that Hawking finds himself in the same trash bin by default.
I may be wrong and there might be something so hidden and so lofty behind all the nonsense. Then all the nonsense is entirely mine while Mr. Hawking has been dropping the pearls of scientific wisdom scorned by the stupid swine like yours truly. You all are invited to tell me what that hidden pearly treasure is after all.

Hi Alfred. Just a few thoughts before Admin. might want to respond.The first thing that comes to mind is, this (to me) seems more of a rant than a topic proposal. Admin proposed in Message 288 for each member to summerize their final position. Here is yours Im not sure anyone understands what that means. Maybe your PNT should try and make your postion more clear so that even the lay person(s) can understand it.In Message 289 You respond: The problem here is simple. This site is particularly interested in Scientific evidence. You state you have none for your postion. What Evolutionist often critisize Creationists about is that (we) have no evidence, and simply pick apart the theories that support current positions, i.e. "The theory of evolution" with our hole punchers.If you want to propose a new thread to show why Hawking and Augustine (and Crashfrog) are wrong then you need to provide an alternative working hypothesis in a way where even I can understand it or atleast the best of the Science minds here. That may very well be true, so what is your alternative to abiogenesis and how can we discuss it in a way that doesn't end up in the religious section?Is it your faith or belief that disproves Hawking wrong then simply say so. There is no shame in it.If you have no evidence (which the Science section requires) join the club and come over to the religious section where we can philisophically discuss this topic. Again, there is no shame in that. Sometimes faith is all we have and it can be a lot. It doesn't make it not true, just not provable at the current time.Where would you like this topic proposal to be? If it is in the Religion section no need for the hypothesis. If you want it in the Science section, get to work.Edited by AdminChuck, : No reason given.Edited by AdminChuck, : edited "If you have no proof " to "If you have no evidence"

That is a fair exposition and assessment, Chuck, save for one point. When I said that I had no evidence what I meant really was that I saw no conclusive evidence to support either abiogenesis or panspermia while what I also saw was a clear dis-balance in accepting either as hard fact of nature and that was in favour of abiogenesis. Otherwise, I provided a link to the sources that show such evidence in the case of panspermia is being actively sought and so on. You can place the thread anywhere you like. It's after all the same site in the same universe.

Chuck mentioned me in his response, so I'll briefly chime in.I think it's important that the topic of discussion and the originator's position be clear before a thread is promoted. If these are present in what looks more like a rant than a proposal then I'm not able to tease them out.If you want to rant then a blog is probably a more effective platform for you, and given your command of the written language I strongly encourage you to do this. But if you want a thread promoted at EvC Forum then you need to clearly delineate both the topic and your position. Edited by Admin, : Typo.