Theism is literally childish

[Brian37]

Now unless you admit to special pleading then your world view holds that the two are equal. Your very same arguments against abiogenesis can also be used to argue that Thor is responsible for lightning and thunder.

Hardly. One of my arguments against abiogenesis is that we've never observed it. We have observed thunder and lightning.

Another is that we don't have a solid mechanical explanation for abiogenesis. The existence of multiple competing hypotheses is proof of that. Yet, we do have a solid generally accepted explanation for thunder and lightning, as you've shown.

You say that no experiments in a lab have ever resulted in abiogenesis, yet you can say the same about thunder. We just don't have labs big enough to create continent sized weather systems or access to a newly formed planet.

I said that the world itself is a continual failing experiment for abiogenesis. The world itself is a continuing successful experiment regarding thunder.

You claim that plausibility is a bullshit concept, so that must mean that it is just as plausible to you that Thor is as responsible for thunderstorms as the idea that it is a purely meteorological event.

You say that I reject plausibility but also embrace plausibility in the same sentence.

As I reject your notion of plausibility until you can tell me how to measure it, it's incorrect to say i find any concepts "just as plausible," as I don't apply your plausibility concept to them at all.

Plausible is just a weasel word in this context.

But we understand both electricity and the process of self organisation to the extent that we use both for practical purposes, but using your argument this would be evidence for intelligent thunder. We can create arcs of static electricity that resemble lightning in a lab, but we can also create synthetic life in a lab.

Yes, and whenever you note that intelligent designers can create things, you're in no way helping your case. It's amusing that you continue to do so.

Using your very same arguments I could say that the static electricity from a Van de Graaf generator is not the same as lightning.

Let's hear it.

Scientists have created synthetic life created in the lab,

There you go again.

and have identified testable, falsifiable and reproducible mechanisms for abiogenesis and useful definitions of life.

If they had something that works in full, there wouldn't still be competing theories.

The great thing about scientific method is that it isn't there to coddle your insecurities or superstitions.

This argument is old, and garbage.

Amino acids make up DNA and RNA PERIOD! 

You not liking the fact Darwin uncovered what was really going on and DNA later backed up what he started, well TOUGH!

And as I have said many times, Christians are NOT the only religion with members, whom, when they cannot debunk science, try to use science to get it to point to their old mythology. Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists do it too.

Don't believe other religions do this?

Ok, google the following.

"Jewish Science"
"Hindu Science"
"Muslim Science"
"Buddhist Science"

Do that, and YOU WILL find either websites attacking science or trying to use science to point to their clubs.

EVOLUTION is not an opinion it is fact, just like the science of flight that explains lift that allows airplanes to fly.

We don't care what you don't like about evolution. It is fact and it does not require your bible, or a Koran or Torah or Vedas or Buddha to understand and accept.