The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[orangebox21]

To oversimplify: evolution is from the beginning until now. It can be broken down into three main segments: stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Stellar evolution has to do with the origin of matter namely the big bang model. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has to do with said matter through chemical processes becoming life. Biological evolution has to do with the life created through chemical evolution becoming what we observe today. While the specific processes have been different throughout time the result is that something has become something else over billions of years and the something it has become is of greater complexity than when it began, hence evolution. Something evolved.

Please define 'life'. Are replicating molecules alive?

For the sake of this discussion life would be the moment in the evolutionary process when chemical evolution (abiogenesis) became biological evolution. This is however different than the origin of life.

There was no free oxygen in the atmosphere or the water when life started. None.

Hydrolysis doesn't require free oxygen. Amino acids would not form in water because the moment they did hydrolysis would occur and the amino acid bonds would break.

The molecular oxygen in our atmosphere and in the oceans is a product of life.

Need a little clarification. Some here are suggesting that life began in water. You are suggesting water was created from life.

Something from nothing is a possibility.

An ultra-high-intensity laser beam and a two-mile-long particle accelerator is something. So it's not the same as nothing producing something. It's something producing something.

So back to the initial premise: cyano bacteria has eternally existed

No one has suggested this apart from you.

To clarify I'm not suggesting that cyano bacteria has eternally existed. If someone suggests that the origin of life is cyano bacteria they are faced with the above choices and most likely that choice is eternal matter. In fact prior to Hubble's discovery that the universe is constantly expanding this is what some scientists believed (that the universe was eternal).

Well, we can accept three options that are all wrong, or we can go with #4: Cyanobacteria originated from a non-living chemical process.

This statement falls under #3. The origin of life is the first step in the process. Reactants that are required for a chemical process cannot be step one; we're back to asking: where did the reactants come from? Did they eternally exist (#1)? Did the reactants come from nothing (#2)? Or is there a previous process that produced the reactants for the chemical processes (#3)? And #3 always leads back to #1 or #2.

But they do need to exist, something you cannot confirm, since they've all been dead for quite a while.

Someone's death is proof of existence. You can't be dead if you haven't existed.

Right, but if you had asked "how does my car move when I step on the gas?" and the answer you got back was "through space," would you be satisfied with that?

You've just made a statement arguing the "how" is justified by the "how" and I agree with that statement. The original statement was that the account (the what) is not justified by understanding "how".

And how many other dead people who make claims of magic do you believe?

There is only one who has died for the forgiveness of sins and in Him I believe. He who is no longer dead but has been resurrected.

No, no it isn't sufficient to take stuff on faith. Even extraordinary, sustained popularity says nothing about the truth of an idea.

It is evidence. I agree not proof of truth. Faith is the belief of things not seen, the assurance of things hoped for. So faith isn't built upon sight (I'm speaking metaphorically here). Much like evolutionists have faith that over the course of millions of years animals changed kinds even though they don't see it today.

See, evidence can be furnished for things even without being there.

Someone still observed the DNA at the crime scene (probably the Detective and the Forensic analyst). It's true you don't need to be at the crime scene but you do observe the DNA once in the courtroom and you couple that with the testimony of the people who did observe it when and where it was.

Oh, and incidentally, if you're so happy to use the "were you there?" argument, were you there when god created the universe? If not, why believe it?

Empirical science requires that to prove something it must be observed ("were you there"). If you claim something has been scientifically proven than you must show that it is observable and repeatable. Your frustration is not with me but with the requirements of empirical science. My faith is not justified by empirical science. The account of creation can't currently be proven by empirical science because it isn't observable or repeatable. Furthermore, nothing can't create something, but God can create something from nothing (breaks the law of conservation of matter). I take God at His word because while I wasn't there at creation He was.

"I can't see how abiogenesis can occur, therefore it's impossible."

Please write me the post number where I wrote this.