Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[The Grand Nudger]

oh sorry here's a quote from your source
"when Alexander Oparin reasoned that atmospheric oxygen prevents the synthesis of certain organic compounds that are necessary building blocks for the evolution of life. In his The Origin of Life,[18][19] Oparin proposed that the "spontaneous generation of life" that had been attacked by Louis Pasteur did in fact occur once, but was now impossible because the conditions found on the early earth had changed,"

this is wrong on so many levels idk where to begin. well first off the point where you, rhythm, daid my spontaneous generation statement was total bs and mistaking it as spontaneous REgeneration was unjustified as it is listed right here. spontaneous generation is life coming from nonliving material

Perhaps you should reread your own posts, reread the link I gave you, and stop being a twat about typos. I made no mistake about spontaneous generation, I misplaced a letter. You're still misrepresenting the (discredited) theory of spontaneous generation. Here, I'll just copy paste, since you can't be bothered to read, obviously.

"Until the early 19th century, people generally believed in the ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter. This was paired with the belief in heterogenesis, e.g. that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g. bees from flowers).[10] Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances. According to Aristotle, it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, flies from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so on."

I italicized the important bits, and bolded the bits which you seem to be completely ignorant of in your explanation of these theories. Feel free to apologize and retract your garbage misrepresentation whenever it's most convenient for you.

It's not life from non-life that has been discredited by experimentation, it's the rather large body of beliefs that have nothing to do with life from non-life (ongoing, aphids from dew, flies from rotting matter, mice from dirty hay etc). The reason that abiogenesis is accepted as a viable theory for our origins is that we actually do know that this is possible given the right circumstances. It's chemistry, not some cosmic mystery. We have good reason to believe that those circumstances were met at the dawn of life.

and has never been observed and Alexander Oparin reasoned, b/c it does not occure it must not be possible in our current atmosphere. that's bassically saying it must be possible since God is stupid so lets just say our atsmophere did not have oxygen when it developed. does that really sound like science?

No, anytime one invokes god, even to call him a moron, it isn't science. It's usually just a criticism of the god concept being offered by the faithful. Of course that's not what's being said here at all. What's actually being said is that life and time has had a profound effect on the environment, this we know for fact. Under current conditions abiogenesis does not seem to be very plausible, because a massive amount of toxins have been released into the air by all of this life since it began. Toxins which we depend on, but would have made early lifeforms existence a living hell. I've explained this to you pages ago.

the only reason to believe the early earth's atsmophere was methane based and not oxygen based is b/c spontaneous generation cannot occure in an oxygen based atmosphere.

Is that the only reason? LOL. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, or what forms of life we find at the earliest points in it's history, do you? What you need to do is use your connection to the interwebs for something other than arguing for abject ignorance. Google "autotroph", and "oxygen budget", then get back to me. Earths current levels of oxygen are a direct product of life, and oxygen is constantly escaping this planet because we are unable to hold it down. That's why it's unlikely that earths early atmosphere was loaded with oxygen. There was no life to produce it en mass, and earth is not the sort of planet that holds onto oxygen very well. That's twice I've explained this to you now, as I mentioned above. If you're just going to ignore me and repeat yourself tell me now and I won't waste any more time on you. None of this helps me, it's old hat, you're the one that's coming off like a complete mouth breather and you could avoid that if you educated yourself.

not to mention w/o oxygen there's no ozone and nothing to protect amonia from harmful radiation that would be blocked by the ozone layer which it cannot evolve. and many things in that predicted atmosphere are toxic to life. hmmm.... not to mention the experiment only produced 2 of the amino acids and they wouldn't even bond b/c of the eliments. amino acids unbond in water faster than they bond and most of earth is filled of water.

Some fucking design indeed.......

in the experiment they filtered out the product which is not realistic at all. and not to mention brawnian motion is going to drive the amino acids away from eachother not put them together.

You're always free to submit all of this to a peer reviewed journal, or devise an experiment that would call these theories into question as potential explanations. Thing is, "i don't know so goddidit" isn't going to fly. It's utter bullshit, and it can never be made science, no matter how much you complain about actual science.