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.

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.