The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

In my brief time at this forum, I have been asked over and over again to prove the supernatural, and been derided for not providing an "acceptable" proof. When I ask for proof of abiogenesis, I see a completely different standard being applied. You accept abiogenesis on the basis that it is "most plausible," with no proof whatsoever. How is that a more credible position than me accepting the supernatural as "most plausible" on the basis of both personal experience and the worldwide, centuries old existence of countless testimonies? At least there are hundreds of thousands of people claiming to have witnessed the supernatural and yet not one who has witnessed abiogenesis.

1) Eyewitness testimony is scientifically demonstrated (that is, by testing) to be ridiculously unreliable as a standard of evidence.

And yet we put people to death on the basis of eyewitness testimony. Go figure. Clearly not all eyewitnesses are unreliable. So I grant you that many claims of supernatural activity would be false but that doesn't rule out every single one over the last 6,000 years, and there has been a lot of them. It's most plausible to me that some of the claims at least are reliable.

2) We do not say "most plausible" as "my favorite guess". We say "most plausible" because what we do know so far fits best with the model of reality, and it is reasonable to infer (which is why, again, dozens of groups of researchers--including the Jet Propulsion Lab, NASA's top scientists--are working on the issue, because it is clear there is something to find) that the historical, physical/chemical mechanism by which life's basic chemicals arose and began to replicate will be found.

This is where I don't agree because to get DNA from a very haphazard, disordered environment, you have to reverse entropy. There is no such thing as a random code, so how are a bunch of random chemicals going to write one?