Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Caecilian]

Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter. Scientists make excuse that the earth would have to be in the same condition as it was billions of years ago for life to be produced. And that’s just what it is. An excuse after so many experiments failed. So where does life comes from if there is no God? Evolution explains the development of life, or how it evolved from point A to point B. It doesn’t explain the origin. How life itself started. Scientists' many attempts recently to synthesize ribonucleotides have failed...

The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence. And for those of you who start dismissing this as non-evidence, then you need to remember that what I’m presenting is a result of centuries of experiments by scientists. Therefore, it is evidence.

As always, only respectful replies will be addressed. Light bantering, criticism and snide remarks are okay. I make them, too, and it’s part of the fun. But no obscenities or name-calling. Most of you did pretty well with respect to that on the previous thread, and for that I thank you.

First of all, all I'm trying to do is demonstrate some evidence. The problem is that people are clicking into my threads thinking that they're going to find definite proof of God's existence. Notice that I never said proof. I said 'evidence.' There's a difference between evidence and proof. No one will ever find definite proof of God's existence, because that is not how God wants it. Belief in God is meant to be faith-based. However, I believe that there are clues all around us that point towards his existence, and that's what I'm attempting to detail.

Secondly, as a theist, it's not much of a jump for me to say that the lack of evidence for abiogenesis points towards God. For me, it's a logical conclusion. However, I understand that atheists won't view it this way. All I'm asking is that you consider this evidence not as conclusive proof, but as a clue, or a piece of a larger puzzle.

Oh dear.

Just thought I'd draw people's attention to the use of fallacious arguments in these truly dreadful posts.

First of all, there's a fallacy called denying the antecedent. This takes the form of:
If A then B
Not A
Therefore not B

In the case above we have:
If scientists could synthesize life, then a natural explanation for life's origin would be possible.
Scientists can't synthesize life.
Therefore there isn't a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Which of course doesn't follow at all. Try substituting 'stars' for 'life' in the above, and you'll see just how silly this so-called 'argument' is.

Next up we have what is called a false dichotomy. AngelThMan creates a false dichotomy by making an implicit, and entirely unwarranted, assumption that the only possible explanations for the existence of life are abiogenisis and divine creation. This leads him to make the fallacious argument that 'evidence' against abiogenisis is somehow evidence for a creator god.

And finally we have a nice example of begging the question. AngelThMan is trying to show that there is evidence for god, but then he goes on to assume that god exists and that 'he' doesn't want us to have clear proof of 'his' existence.

So what do these posts demonstrate? I'd say that they are evidence that creationists have trouble with formulating coherent arguments (which of course we knew already). I'd also say that they are clear evidence that AngelThMan isn't very smart.