Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, there's one instance of special pleading right there.

I don't think special pleading applies here.

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.

So what standard am I applying to you (general you) and exempting myself from? Any worldview would have the obligation of explaining life from non-life. Mine is that God did it because my presuppositions are that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God. Why would I be required to provide more. My answer flows logically from my presuppositions. You may think it is silly but it does flow logically. If yours is that matter/energy exist and all comes from this and naturalistic processes, it is your obligation to explain how. If you cannot, that is fine. But taking those presuppositions, it seems to that you would be limited to a naturalistic explanation where my position is not so limited.

It is special pleading because you are asserting by fiat that your godling can imbue life in the non-living, while asserting that organic chemistry cannot, all the while having zero support for either claim.

Sure...so? The also have the disadvantage that scientists cannot reproduce life from non-life still. Come talk to me when they actually create life from non-life. Otherwise, all the hypotheses are really meaningless and prove nothing. Could I prove creation by coming up with a hypothesis as to how God created? I think not. So neither do the naturalistic hypotheses prove anything.

Well, it's a good thing I never said they did, then!

However, not all hypotheses are equal. You see, we can see organic chemistry at work any day of the week. Perhaps you should hold your "god hypothesis" to your same standard of replicability which you demand of material processes ... or perhaps you wish to indulge in special pleading once more?

I find it very inyeresting that I originally asked why none of you atheists here thought of critiquing Min's post and all I have gotten is name calling and people asserting that I said things I did not. My questions are never answered but unsupported statements are provided.

Is this how atheists argue rationally?

There must be someone here that can have a discussion about issues and positions without getting emotional and calling names.

How have I insulted you? What names have I called you?

I find your proclivity for broad generalizations interesting.