Theism is literally childish

[I_am_not_mafia]

Citation required. Also a definition of what you mean by inanimate matter vs animate matter. And define life while you're at it.

I see you ignored my example of a car being made up of inanimate matter, yet no one would argue that a car can't be animated. What you are doing is performing a fallacy of composition. It is energy that animates the car. The only difference between inanimate and animated matter is whether there is a flow of energy through it that can perform work. I could have instead used the example of an ice crystal growing, or snow recrystalising over time while the temperature (energy) changes but stays below freezing.

@emjay: I get that some theists appear to be playing word games in order to cling to their belief.

Can you understand that I see the same thing in some atheists?

Right, so you didn't bother responding to my argument about why you are wrong, you just quote it and refer to it as word games rather than try to improve your knowledge or better your understanding about reality. But then this is exactly what I am talking about. If you have been raised to believe that the world is made up of fairy tales and only one of them is correct, then why would you bother learning about any other world view if you have no way to figure out which is correct? I have no interest in learning about the christian mythos any more than say that of Quetzalcoatl. This would explain why theists typically do not try to explain their fairy tale but to portray science as being on an equal footing by fixating on the gaps in our knowledge.

Look at what you are doing on this thread. You're not even trying to point out how praying to a god could be in any way plausible. All you are doing is pointing at a small gap in our knowledge and making unfounded assertions.

Anyway you clearly know more about this than I do, so I at least read a bit of the wiki on abiogenesis;

No, he really does not know anything about abiogenesis except how to make unfounded assertions in a way that one assumes that he must have a reason for stating. This is someone who thinks that at the point of the Big Bang it was all just inanimate matter.

Bingo - billions of years worth of opportunity for abiogenesis, but it supposedly only happened once.

I'd find abiogenesis and evolution more believable if there were multiple instances and trees rather than just one.

Wrong. All we know is that there is one common ancestor on Earth. This does not tell us whether there were other instances that have died out, or whether abiogenesis has occurred independently elsewhere in the solar system or galaxy.

Your assertion also misses the point that once life does take hold then it changes the environment. It spreads everywhere, expands to fill a niche, evolves and will therefore out compete any other form of new life that occurs since.

We know that with Darwinian evolution that if two species try occupying the same evolutionary niche that eventually only one of them will survive. There is no reason to suspect that this doesn't also apply to abiogenesis.

Do you even know what Occam's razor says? It says that you shouldn't multiply entities needlessly. In the case of a universe with a beginning, as science says ours has, it's not needless to infer an additional entity, i.e. a creator.

What???

That is entirely the opposite of Occam's razor.

Your argument can be paraphrased as:

'Occam's razor tells us that the explanation with the fewest assumptions should be selected so we should add an assumption.'