Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It wasn't Pasteur's idea.  He was the one who eventually demonstrated it (the idea of biogenesis) though with his flask experiments.  The problem with abiogenesis is that it asserts the opposite happened at some point in time, and there's no way to prove it.  So at best it's wishful thinking for those who want to believe it explains anything about life.

Nope it's a excellent  collection of theories that's being studied and you can assert it's wishful thinking all you like . And in fact biogenesis in no way proves life only comes from life it only proves life in it's current state does it's funny that it's own assertion is unprovable as to the origins of the first life .

---

That doesn't even make sense because it assumes dependency when there is none.  If I paint a picture, on its own that picture cannot demand anything of me.  I could throw it in the trash and it would have no say in the matter.  I could paint over it with a different picture and it couldn't do anything about it.  The cause determines the effect, not the other way around.  As such, by what power or authority would you force God to submit to your demands?  Of course the predictable response is a tantrum while stating that "there is no God"  Of course your whole argument puts you more at odds with the idea of deism.  Maybe I should go find a hardcore deist you can go round-n-round with them about it instead.  Might save me a headache.

So no real answer then

---

They don't need to.  We use science to study the natural world.

I've done peer-reviewed work in the past to include through self-study, to group projects, to doing peer review.  Never did I feel like there was some inherent obligation that I must include an explanation about God.  When you say "physics" you instantly default to the natural world, so you're going to talk about natural relationships.  What scientific study does do is evaluate relationships between two or more variables.  It doesn't attempt to make claims about anything supernatural, because you can't create parameters for such since they don't necessarily adhere to natural laws, which is why you get the "super" before "natural."  I'm certainly not debating whether or not there are a lot of cosmologists who are atheist and believe there was a big bang, but that is their choice.  We can't observe a "big bang" from the past, so it's based on conjecture.  Conjecture doesn't mean something is false, but we can't conclusively state it as being such without further knowledge.  When you start looking at the origins of anything, it's extremely difficult, because if we can't physically observe something, we are forming a conclusion based on insufficient knowledge.  I don't even have a problem with the "big bang" as a possibility, but I would see it as an effect rather than an initial cause.

So you have no answers then and lots of magic done it 

-Sorry, I'll stick with what science has shown us.  You can believe whatever you like.  No abiogenesis.  Fiction created by fiction enthusiasts, then brainwashing people to buy into the nonsense.

-Answer to what?  I provided a response and you just quoted it.  What more do you want?  But I can tell you what I would love to see.  A video of something inorganic forming something organic.  How about nothing exploding into something?  If it's scientific, I'm sure you should have no problem providing a demonstration of it happening.