We can't explain how life got started therefore you claim you can by saying "god did it!". It's a pathetic piece of evidence at best, contradictory, and laughable to anyone who has a basic understanding of logic.
People used to not know how thunderstorms happened, so they said god did it. We know that's not true. Just because science has yet to explain something doesn't mean it's unexplainable, and further does not mean it has a supernatural cause. You are essentially saying, "I cannot explain this, therefore I can explain it!"
Furthermore, I'm sure you know about the Miller-Urey experiment. While yes, it didn't replicate the conditions of earth around the time life sprang up, it proves that the building blocks of life CAN be produced through purely chemical means. It's not a slam dunk, but it means that abiogenesis looks more likely. Furthermore, abiogenesis is not the only possible explanation for the origin of life. There are other theories out there, one being panspermia.
It could be the case that God created life. We don't know. If you have evidence for God creating the first organisms, then less talk. However all you are doing is dismissing abiogenesis, when frankly it's not ready to be dismissed.
I don't claim to know the origin of the first organism, however I maintain that whatever is unexplained is just that, unexplained. Don't tell me you know the answer to something that you couldn't possibly know. And without providing evidence for a supernatural cause, I have no reason to believe in a supernatural cause.
Nice try, but there was absolutely nothing you said that I have not heard before and thoroughly dismissed as absurd.
People used to not know how thunderstorms happened, so they said god did it. We know that's not true. Just because science has yet to explain something doesn't mean it's unexplainable, and further does not mean it has a supernatural cause. You are essentially saying, "I cannot explain this, therefore I can explain it!"
Furthermore, I'm sure you know about the Miller-Urey experiment. While yes, it didn't replicate the conditions of earth around the time life sprang up, it proves that the building blocks of life CAN be produced through purely chemical means. It's not a slam dunk, but it means that abiogenesis looks more likely. Furthermore, abiogenesis is not the only possible explanation for the origin of life. There are other theories out there, one being panspermia.
It could be the case that God created life. We don't know. If you have evidence for God creating the first organisms, then less talk. However all you are doing is dismissing abiogenesis, when frankly it's not ready to be dismissed.
I don't claim to know the origin of the first organism, however I maintain that whatever is unexplained is just that, unexplained. Don't tell me you know the answer to something that you couldn't possibly know. And without providing evidence for a supernatural cause, I have no reason to believe in a supernatural cause.
Nice try, but there was absolutely nothing you said that I have not heard before and thoroughly dismissed as absurd.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :odcast:: Boston Atheists Report
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :odcast:: Boston Atheists Report