Abiogenesis is impossible

[Minimalist]

The problem isn't that we don't have one, it's that we have several plausible ones and don't know which of them is correct or if it's some other path we haven't thought of yet.

The thing is, none of them involve your stupid fucking god playing in the dirt.

[snowtracks]

Abiogenesis is impossible

To prove that all life forms came to be without God, evolutionary theory must show that atoms somehow formed into some form of life and then evolved upward to mankind.

very impressive.
Okay atheist, think he's got your number. and no, the multiverse isn't going to bail you out this one.

[Minimalist]

Hey, shithead. How about providing some "evidence" for your fucking god before you get too full of yourself?

[Zen Badger]

...Oh, the bible?

You mean that book where the all knowing god doesn't know that bats are mammals and not birds?

Yep, solid source of scientific inerrancy you have there buddy.

The classification - mammal - was formulated thousands of years AFTER the bible was written. Birds and bats ARE both 'winged creatures'

Do yourself a favor and stop using that ignorant counter-apologetic trope.

So you admit that your god was ignorant of the distinction?

Fair enough, remarkably stupid god you have there though.

[snowtracks]

[quote='Lion IRC' pid='523782' dateline='1381622230']

Life is merely an arrangement of non-living matter.

now, you're being fippent, i mean to say fippant.

[Esquilax]

Abiogenesis is impossible

To prove that all life forms came to be without God, evolutionary theory must show that atoms somehow formed into some form of life and then evolved upward to mankind.

very impressive.
Okay atheist, think he's got your number. and no, the multiverse isn't going to bail you out this one.

Actually no, but it seems like your number is "not understanding evolution." See, evolution concerns itself with already living matter, not the formation of living matter. Complaining that evolution doesn't explain how life got started and is therefore false is like leveling the same complaint against gravity, it'd be equally ridiculous, and the answer would be the same: it was never meant to.

Besides, phrasing this as an atheist problem just means you're making an argument from ignorance; even if evolution was false, theism doesn't automatically become true.

[Lion IRC]

The classification - mammal - was formulated thousands of years AFTER the bible was written. Birds and bats ARE both 'winged creatures'

Do yourself a favor and stop using that ignorant counter-apologetic trope.

So you admit that your god was ignorant of the distinction?

Fair enough, remarkably stupid god you have there though.

Winged creatures.
They all have wings.
The word 'mammal' is a classification that came thousands of years LATER.

[Zen Badger]

Life is merely an arrangement of non-living matter.

now, you're being fippent, i mean to say fippant.

So at what level then, does life become not-life?

At the cellular level? At the molecular level?

How about atomic?

---

So you admit that your god was ignorant of the distinction?

Fair enough, remarkably stupid god you have there though.

Winged creatures.
They all have wings.
The word 'mammal' is a classification that came thousands of years LATER.

Irrelevant, since the bible quite clearly says birds or fowl, not "winged creatures".

Clear evidence though that the bible was written by fallible men with no god to influence them.

Just an agenda to advance.

[Chas]

[quote='Lion IRC' pid='523782' dateline='1381622230']

Life is merely an arrangement of non-living matter.

now, you're being fippent, i mean to say fippant.

No, I am not. That is what makes up a living creature - a complex arrangement of atoms.

There is no 'life force', there is nothing to distinguish the atoms in a living organism from any other atoms.

[Captain Colostomy]

now, you're being fippent, i mean to say fippant.

So at what level then, does life become not-life?

At the cellular level? At the molecular level?

How about atomic?

---

Winged creatures.
They all have wings.
The word 'mammal' is a classification that came thousands of years LATER.

Irrelevant, since the bible quite clearly says birds or fowl, not "winged creatures".

Clear evidence though that the bible was written by fallible men with no god to influence them.

Just an agenda to advance.

The original Hebrew is flying creature, if I recall correctly. Of course, your statement of fallible men is the main point. Even jews, who have more at stake in a clear rendering need talmudic scholarly input(guesses) to follow along. Christians with their spin on things are even further removed from the source.