What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Redbeard The Pink]

Abiogenesis is not evolution...

How many times can we say it I wonder?

Read and weep.
Abiogenesis -
 1. The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...biogenesis

The point is that the cell and DNA would both need to have independent simultaneous spontaneous generation from some hypothetical, unguided, mindless set of processes, but it's perfectly fine you believe that.

OK, so Oxford chose unfortunate wording for their definition, you quote-mining little shit.


Abiogenesis, technically and honestly speaking, is the process by which life arises from non-living matter.That's all. Evolution, as in biology's Theory of Evolution, is the process by which living things change from generation to generation. Those are not the same process, and our levels of knowledge about them are not the same either. Regardless of how much or little we know about Abiogenesis, Evolution is a well-established fact. Deal with it.


Part of the definition of life is that it must include at least one "cell" (or at least that was still the definition they were teaching us when I was learning this stuff). The cellular level is the dividing line between life and non-life, but that doesn't mean that it's the simplest level at which organic chemistry or even biochemistry occurs. Viruses, for instance, can display various types of cellular motility, and they are able to house and use RNA to hijack DNA and harvest the material needed to replicate themselves. Viruses have several of the parts and characteristics of cells, but they're not complete cells and cannot replicate by cell division, so they're not technically considered "alive" by scientists using the strictest definition of the word. Still, they are an example of something that is simpler than a cell that can still move and thrive by some of the same materials and mechanisms, so it stands to reason that complete cells may have arisen from genetic and biochemical agents simpler than themselves (like something similar to a virus, for instance).


Regardless, though, your only real goal here is to get someone to admit that we don't know that much about Abiogenesis, at which point you will assert (without evidence) that the supernatural intervention of your personal deity is required for it to occur, and if pressed for evidence you will insist upon somebody proving you wrong, which is an argument from ignorance and a misplaced burden of proof, respectively.


Either that or you're trying to claim that it is a logical absurdity that a complete cell with DNA in it could have formed over time out of things simpler than itself, but that isn't true for reasons I just explained.