What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that a person who answers the question of how life on earth began with "pixies did it" has room to call others childish, lol.

[Whateverist]

I am confident that abiogenesis can not and will not ever be proven because life was created by intelligent design.

I think I see part of the problem with your thinking. You think abiogenesis is the same as spontaneous generation, don't you? Some news for you: it's not. Life isn't some spiritual entity that just spontaneously emerged out of nowhere. It's not even equivalent to consciousness. It's a process that emerged gradually and continues to occur, correlating with process of biological evolution via natural and artificial selection.

Some would say the secret is in the sauce (i.e. chemistry).

[He lives]

I have always wondered why atheist are so adamant about spontaneous generation when there is no proof that it is even possible.

Because life originating from simple molecular structures is considerably more plausible than a super-powered sentient being just being out there, for no particular reason --

Being our father he is there to guide and instruct us so we can become like he is. Life is truly miraculous. There is much we do not know or understand about it. I find intelligent design much more plausible than abiogenesis. There is more to life than the body.

-- and then resorting to the utterly baffling behaviours described in the Bible.  Seriously, planting two magical trees within reach of two unsophisticated humans with no moral knowledge, and then getting upset at them for failing an obedience test that they were incapable of comprehending until after they had failed it?

This was a type to show his children the importance of obedience. God knew that many of his children would choose a path opposite to happiness and many of them have done this because they love themselves more than they love others. Eve was aware she was disobedient. The trees were not magic, but they did contain the requires ingredients whether minerals or enzymes to complete the process.

No, I'll stick with organic chemistry and wait patiently for science to connect the dots.  I'm in no hurry.

[Astreja]

First of all: Stop. Mangling. My. Quotes! Your words are all mixed up with mine. At least have the decency to put yours in a different colour.

Secondly: No decent "father" would kick his kids out of the house for one mistake that they could not have known was a mistake until after they had made it. Your mythology is absurd, your idea of morality is dodgy, and your alleged god is a complete and utter prick unworthy of worship.

Suffice to say that I am not interested in becoming a Christian. Ever.

[Crossless2.0]

Certainly there is no  proof that life was created by spontaneous generation.

Oh, your homeschool science book made it all the way to the 19th Century with Pasteur and Tyndall? How nice for you!

[robvalue]

First of all:  Stop. Mangling. My. Quotes!  Your words are all mixed up with mine.  At least have the decency to put yours in a different colour.

Secondly:  No decent "father" would kick his kids out of the house for one mistake that they could not have known was a mistake until after they had made it.  Your mythology is absurd, your idea of morality is dodgy, and your alleged god is a complete and utter prick unworthy of worship.

Suffice to say that I am not interested in becoming a Christian.  Ever.

It's pretty funny how they think they're selling their religion here, but they're actually just making it sound worse.

[He lives]

Thank you for your honest appraisal. I respect your intellectual views. Some posts I do not answer because they are rude, crude, closed minded and or childish. I know some of the Christians are of the same nature and it bothers me. I know that alien abduction and bigfoot rely on anecdotal evidence, by the same token abiogenesis has no more evidence than intelligent design has. Certainly there is no  proof that life was created by spontaneous generation.

Cool that we both appreciate honest and rational conversation. That's a good starting point.

First off, I wouldn't use the term "spontaneous generation." That's an antiquated theory where mice were believed to spontaneously form from haystacks, maggots from rotting meat, etc. It was based on crude observations.

Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular.
...
Rejection of spontaneous generation is no longer controversial among biologists. By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support due to the work of Louis Pasteur and others that the traditional theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

(My emphasis)

No modern biologist lends any credence to the theory. So stick with the term "abiogenesis" to remain accurate.

You are correct to say that no theory of abiogenesis has been proven. How life arose from nonliving matter is a mystery to modern science. There are competing models at the moment; possibly one of them is correct. Perhaps not. We will see. Science is working on it. Be patient.

Not every truth can be discovered by scientific inquiry, but I don't think this particular mystery will is beholden to philosophic investigation or any other observation-based field besides physical science. Biologists will either figure it out and everybody will know, or they will fail... and how life arose from non-life will forever remain a mystery. My guess is that biologists will figure it out eventually. We'll have to wait and see.

I remember abiogenesis being covered in a high school science class. No one model was advanced as the "correct" one, though some were said to be more plausible than others. Putting plausible models out there as possibilities is part of the work of science. Don't forget that Einstein's relativity was once an untested idea. There were also competing models that tried to explain minor gravitational anomalies, theories which contradicted relativity. They turned out to be wrong. That's science. The important thing is that all claims were tested before being considered valid.

The religious claims surrounding the origins of life cannot stand a modicum of scrutiny before being demonstrated implausible. People have tried, but no one has produced compelling evidence for it. That's just the way it goes. If God really made life during the six day creation period roughly 6,000 years ago, maybe science will discover evidence for it some day. I'm not holding my breath... but hey, if you think that's how it really went down, why don't you think science will discover evidence for it? It seems as if you have already concluded that no evidence will be found that supports creationism. Don't worry. I've concluded the very same thing.

Try not to get butthurt so easily. A ton of fair and rational discussion transpires here, but this isn't a formal debate forum. Some people are going to shoot from the hip and react to your statements emotionally. I've gotten butthurt here before, and I'm an atheist. Might I suggest a metaphorical chastity belt, and maybe some metaphorical lube (in case someone manages to pop the lock). Really, it helps anywhere (whether in RL or the internet) where frank discussions transpire. I came here to have rational discussions and debates but also to say what I honestly feel about religion/religious ideas. Here, I can forcefully express what might be considered rude or disrespectful in RL. This is an appropriate place for such expressions. Get used to it. But keep in mind, also, that you'll find more intellectual honesty here than in any Christian forum I've ever been to.

Thank you again for your honesty. I am not against science or what science has done but I do feel like some scientist, even with the best intentions, are taking us down some dead end roads. I have long believes that that body is not life, but life is more than just the body. You are right that spontaneous generation has a bad connotation, so I will not use that terminology again. Thank you for pointing that out. There has been research done on out of body. I don't know it you are aware of the research that was done by Dr. Tart: 

Dr. Charles Tart, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California–Davis, performed one of the most famous studies on OBEs. He tested a woman, whom he referred to in the study as Miss Z, by placing a number on a shelf above the bed on which she slept. He watched her as she slept to insure she did not physically get up and look at the number.

The 5-digit number was randomly selected after she had gone to sleep, and it was brought into the room in an opaque envelope. Miss Z reported having left her body while lying on the bed and having floated up to look at the number. She correctly stated the number as it was written on the paper.

[vulcanlogician]

[A bunch of stuff mixed in with what Astreja said.]

Hey man. To quote people point by point write:

Code:

[quote] The text you want to quote from someone else. Then write: [/quote]

Put your own comments outside the quote thingies. That way, it's clear who said what.

There's more information here:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-3560.html

[Crossless2.0]

Regarding Tart's OBE study of 'Miss Z', there's this from the Wikipedia article on Tart:

In 1968, Tart conducted an Out-of-body experience (OBE) experiment with a subject known as Miss Z for four nights in his sleep laboratory.[4] Miss Z was attached to an EEG machine and a five-digit code was placed on a shelf above her bed. She did not claim to see the number on the first three nights but on the fourth gave the number correctly.[5][6]

During the experiment Tart monitored the equipment in the next room, behind an observation window, however, he admitted he had occasionally dozed during the night.[7] The psychologists Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones have written that the possibility of the subject having obtained the number through ordinary sensory means was not ruled out during the experiment. For example, when light fell on the code it was reflected from the surface of a clock located on the wall above the shelf. The subject was not constantly observed and it was also suggested she may have read the number when she was being attached to the EEG machine.[5] According to the magician Milbourne Christopher "If she had held a mirror with a handle in her right hand, by tilting the mirror and looking up she could have seen a reflection of the paper on the shelf... The woman had not been searched prior to the experiment, nor had an observer been in the sleep chamber with her — precautions that should have been taken."[7]

The psychologist James Alcock criticized the experiment for inadequate controls and questioned why the subject was not visually monitored by a video camera.[8] Martin Gardner has written the experiment was not evidence for an OBE and suggested that whilst Tart was "snoring behind the window, Miss Z simply stood up in bed, without detaching the electrodes, and peeked."[9] Susan Blackmore wrote "If Miss Z had tried to climb up, the brain-wave record would have showed a pattern of interference. And that was exactly what it did show."[10]

The experiment was not repeated at the laboratory, Tart wrote this was because Miss Z moved from the area where the laboratory was located.[11]

[vulcanlogician]

Crossless ninja'd me. Remember what I said about extraordinary claims? What kind of evidence do they require? This experiment should have been set up under more controlled conditions.