The Resurrection

[Sheldon]

The abiogenesis argument alone seems to settle the debate. You cannot hold the position that life was able to emerge from a non-living environment, but reject that life is able to re-emerge in a structure with all the components of life present. You also can't hold the position that in the first case life emerged through an unguided process, but that it would not be able to emerge through a guided process.

Holding the first position seems to commit everyone to the second. Pessimism over how hard it is to do with today's technology seems beside the point.

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It certainly exposes a deep ignorance of abiogenesis and evolution to conflate the processes with the arbitrary reanimation of dead flesh.

Well stay tuned, in my experience when theists try to reverse the burden of proof, it can produce some comedy gold. 

@John 6IX Breezy You cannot hold the position that life was able to emerge from a non-living environment

I can however accept abiogenesis is more plausible than unevidenced superstition, since nothing proposed in it defies scientific facts, and it is supported by some objective evidence. I see nothing plausible in unevidenced archaic superstition, but then the word plausible would lose all meaning if I did.

Holding the first position seems to commit everyone to the second.

Nope, this is false dichotomy fallacy.