Abiogenesis is impossible

[Esquilax]

the guy throw out some odds, and no rebuttal to those odds came forth.

Nor is there a requirement that we rebut them; as has been pointed out to Grace in the past, small odds do not mean a thing is impossible- and the alternative is a magic god that, interestingly enough, never has the odds of it happening calculated, remember- but also that the odds of it happening, in retrospect, are one hundred percent, because it did happen: we've got strong experimental results indicating that it's possible, while you and Grace give us nothing but your own incredulity, and numbers without any context or calculations given, as though your opinions carry weight just because you've decided to offer them.

Just what the hell is your level of scientific education to be doubting this stuff anyway? Grace won't tell us hers, and given that this is a very complex subject, I and the other atheists are apt to not take the opinions of uneducated laymen with a presupposition seriously.

instead we get bats not classified correctly in the bible, questions does life begin at the atomic level, or where?

It isn't our fault that we have a lot of mistakes to cover. Perhaps you'd consider advocating a position that is less stupid and internally contradictory?

what odds do the atheist have?

We don't need them, because odds don't actually tell you what did happen; they're a stopgap on the way to finding out reality. In this case, where does the evidence point? Oh, that's right: to abiogenesis, whether it's the longshot or not.

by the way, the 'God the gap' responds only has a limited shelf life.

So stop using the fallacy; it isn't our fault that you feel the need to continually retract your god whenever you're proven wrong.

Besides, we've been pointing out your argument from ignorance and personal incredulity, too.