Abiogenesis is impossible

[Doubting Thomas]

Abiogenesis is impossible

To prove that all life forms came to be without God, evolutionary theory must show that atoms somehow formed into some form of life and then evolved upward to mankind.

very impressive.
Okay atheist, think he's got your number. and no, the multiverse isn't going to bail you out this one.

You think a simple argument from ignorance has "got our number?" Think again.

I'll say this just once to you, so let it soak in. Just because science does not have a definite answer on how life began on this planet doesn't mean that biblical creationism is the only correct explanation.

In other words, if you were able today to prove all of science absolutely wrong, it doesn't mean that "Goddidit" is the correct answer to all the questions of the universe.

[snowtracks]

the guy throw out some odds, and no rebuttal to those odds came forth. instead we get bats not classified correctly in the bible, questions does life begin at the atomic level, or where?
what odds do the atheist have? by the way, the 'God the gap' responds only has a limited shelf life.

[Tonus]

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

Yes, it stops being effective as soon as you stop using the argument that "we don't know, therefore god." Since most of Grace's arguments are just another version of that argument, you'll keep hearing the obvious response to it.

[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.

[Bad Writer]

the guy throw out some odds, and no rebuttal to those odds came forth. instead we get bats not classified correctly in the bible, questions does life begin at the atomic level, or where?
what odds do the atheist have? by the way, the 'God the gap' responds only has a limited shelf life.

Let me guess; our argument against god of the gaps stops being relevant the moment Jaysus returns to burn all us non-believers, right? At least we have your permission to use it until then.

[popeyespappy]

the guy throw out some odds, and no rebuttal to those odds came forth. instead we get bats not classified correctly in the bible, questions does life begin at the atomic level, or where?
what odds do the atheist have? by the way, the 'God the gap' responds only has a limited shelf life.

Grace's shit stain of an odds argument has been rebutted several times in the multiple threads he has started. Those rebuttals include: 1) The calculation assumes chance. Biochemistry doesn't happen be chance. It happens according to natural laws that govern chemical reactions. 2) The calculation assumes the early life formed in a more complex form than scientists believe it took. 3) It ignores the fact that trials would have been taking place innumerable times under vastly different conditions overs millions of years. Grace mostly ignores the rebuttals when they are are presented. On the rare occasion he has addressed them his counter consists of nothing more than, "Nope. Goddidit."

[daandaan]

Fuck's sake.

Genesis 2:7: Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Life, coming from a non-biological catalyst on non-biological material? In the book of Genesis? Why, that sounds like abiogenesis. You fucking retard.

So now you agree with me that God must have created all life.

no, if god made us , we would consist of DIRTH, not out of DNA..

hahahahahahahahahahaha

[downbeatplumb]

life from non-life happens all the time.

http://click4biology.info/c4b/9/plant9.2.htm

Plants absorb minerals and water from the soil and using energy from the sun they combine them into the plant themselves. They use chemical reactions to achieve all this.

[daandaan]

life from non-life happens all the time.

http://click4biology.info/c4b/9/plant9.2.htm

Plants absorb minerals and water from the soil and using energy from the sun they combine them into the plant themselves. They use chemical reactions to achieve all this.

i ve use that argument as well a few months ago...somewhere else,,,

[downbeatplumb]

life from non-life happens all the time.

http://click4biology.info/c4b/9/plant9.2.htm

Plants absorb minerals and water from the soil and using energy from the sun they combine them into the plant themselves. They use chemical reactions to achieve all this.

i ve use that argument as well a few months ago...somewhere else,,,

Great minds think alike.