Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[Hollie]

Genesis as an account of some alleged relationship with the gods is quite a dilemma. Per the fable, the gods lied to the only humans in existence.

I wouldn’t describe a relationship founded on lies as a worthy relationship.

Where did God lie in Genesis? Can you prove he lied with evidence just like in a court case?

Instead, it was Satan who lied as he contradicted God in everything he said with evolutionary thinking and history over the years. You have to agree that both the Bible and evolutionary history were written separately over the years. One big lie Satan told through Charles Darwin was to contradict nature's laws do not happen by chance and they were designed by an intelligence. Even Einstein said God does not play dice. Instead, Darwin said that it was a "designed law" having come together by chance. Darwin first causes doubt and then uses his lie. This is Satan's technique. Many people think Charles Darwin was wrong on this they do not argue things happening in nature by a designed law using chance or randomness anymore.

Anyway, you're not going to answer my questions I ask here, so we should cut this off.

The men who wrote the Genesis fable were pretty careless. The gods lied, Satan told the truth.

Yes, I can prove the gods lied with evidence just like in a court case? I spelled it out here: if not evolution

Can you disprove the above just like in a court case? Subpoena the gods as your first rebuttal witnesses.



“Evolutionary history” must be a term you folks use at creation.com. It’s meaningless as the process of biological evolution is an ongoing process.

Otherwise, why blame mythical characters for the fears and superstitions that haunt you? Let go of the things that keep you a slave to fear and ignorance and you will be a slave no more.

Ultimately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy as written in biblical tales and fables is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn with regard to the time in human history when the ebb and flow of life was dictated by a ruthlessness of societies and a nature that was largely not understood. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

 

[Hollie]

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

You're the missing the point. Hollie demanded to know how God created life, and Fort Fun Indiana thought that was a sensible demand. Obviously, by definition, God is all power and has all knowledge. Creating life would be a sneeze, a yawn, a thought, a spoken word. Also, they both insist that abiogenesis is an absolute fact. I'm not God, and any answer I would give would be mocked. That was, of course, the very essence of their demand in the first place, namely, mockery. Hence, your comment is silly. You new atheists mindlessly spout "logical fallacy!" like robots.

Clearly, it is you missing the point. Obviously, by definition, your partisan version of the gods are just hand-me-down conceptions, an amalgam of earlier gods. “All power and has all knowledge” are human derived attributes of those gods.

More to the point, you attribute “all power and has all knowledge” to your gods and then proceed to add any number of human attributes to them.
This is a good example of a self-contradictory assertion.

You assert the various human attributes of the gods and not the anthropomorphic ones-- you assert they are “all power and has all knowledge” and then assign to them emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes assumes some lack or need that is required to be satisfied. This will not do in your argument, because it immediately defuses your claim that they are in some way “all power and has all knowledge”.

 

[james bond]

The men who wrote the Genesis fable were pretty careless. The gods lied, Satan told the truth.

Funny. At least, I hope you're being sarcastic. How were the men who wrote Genesis being careless since they?

Yes, I can prove the gods lied with evidence just like in a court case? I spelled it out here: if not evolution

Hm.. okay, so you think it's allegory. But so does ding because he's Catholic, and like a good Catholic boy, he listens to Pope Francis. That said, allegory doesn't make it the truth. I've said this before and that one has to use a priori thinking and not a posteriori thinking to argue the evidence for God and ascertain what is truth. Surely, as a non-believer you would agree to using rational thinking or facts, reasoning, and historical truth?

Can you disprove the above just like in a court case? Subpoena the gods as your first rebuttal witnesses.

Unfortunately, one can't subpoena God who doesn't live in this dimension. What we have to do is present the evidence and that is the universe had a beginning. We agreed on this because of the CMB and big bang. That leads to Kalam's Cosmological Argument and God. One can also use the ontological argument for God and that is:

Evolutionary thinking and history is from the ancient times when humans formulated a posteriori thinking. It doesn't mean empiricism back then.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

You see when you state biological evolution or ToE, then we already have the single cell. I've talked about how Darwin did not create the ToE as many people think, but just explained how it worked. This is why we have to use evolutionary thinking and history to discuss the pseudoscience of spontaneious thinking and abiogenesis.

Otherwise, why blame mythical characters for the fears and superstitions that haunt you? Let go of the things that keep you a slave to fear and ignorance and you will be a slave no more.

This doesn't make any sense. It's like a non sequitur. We are not discussing mythical characters, fears and superstitions that haunt people. We are discussing the supernatural only in the first two books of Genesis. Maybe this chart is easier for you to understand. My position is on the bottom.

Water covered Earth is water vapor with volcanic gases. God created the EMS the first day and what he deemed necessary for the heavens and Earth. This would include oxygen, O2, Higgs field and boson, Planck's constant, volcanic gases, and more. He started to stretch out the heavens on the first day starting spacetime. We also have the fine tuning facts on the first two days and separation of day and night, i.e. light and dark, and the creation of the atmosphere with that of the oceans below. Notice with the big bang, some of the details of the formations are missing and that it was assumed that the universe started from invisible quantum particles. Where is your witness for that? Since there are no witnesses, then how do you explain how the first two days events came into being? Much has been made of singularity and cosmic inflation, but the details are lacking. What were the early gases in your opinion? I don't think you answered that. Thus, it is hard to understand what your thesis is exactly and sounds like magic.

Ultimately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy as written in biblical tales and fables is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn with regard to the time in human history when the ebb and flow of life was dictated by a ruthlessness of societies and a nature that was largely not understood. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

I tried to explain this and that it isn't based on fear of the superstitious, but understanding an all-powerful and all-knowing creator. The metaphysical is not just on the creationist side, but now the secular/atheist scientists are using the metaphysical big bang to explain universe ex nihilo and abiogenesis to explain creatio ex nihilo.

 

[james bond]

Of course not, because one of the premises to be proven would have to be that god is omniscient. Of course, nobody could prove such an idiotic, magical idea.

There are many prophecies in the Bible and the biblical scholars tell us that so far all of them have come true. This is part of God's omniscience. For example, do you not believe in the historicity of Jesus? I can post William Lane Craig vids or articles, but you wouldn't read them would you? We can go over the OT as well as the NT. You decide which items to discuss such as how King Solomon was able to declare, "then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind)," 1 Kings 8:39. Or what Jesus knew when he met people. What is difficult to discuss with you is you cannot get past God's history as some kind of magic or illusion. If it was, then the Bible would not be considered non-fiction and historical. I mean one can question its accuracy by going outside the Bible to find whether something is explained elsewhere and whether it matches that what is said in the Bible. I'm not a mind reader like God, so do not know what parts you question or what parts you have heard of. There must be some things you've heard of or else you would not hold the opinion that you do.

ETA: What about dark matter and dark energy? Can we discuss this? Dark energy is God to creationists. Dark matter is I'm not sure, but one article is here -- Dark Matter, Sparticles, and the Big Bang. Will have to read when I get a chance.

 

[DOTR]

You are the one who insists on alien life because “there must be”.

Hmm,no, I think there is a small chance, however tiny, that there is no other life in the universe. I just think it is overwhelmingly likely that there is or has been. As does every scientist on the planet.

But, if you have an argument to the contrary, let's hear it. No religious crap allowed.

I won’t interfere in your religion. But you shouldn’t project your superstition to “every scientist on the planet”. Too many to count work under the “rare earth hypothesis”.
It’s just they aren’t on the National Geographic shows you watch.

 

[DOTR]

but it looks like we are all alone here.

I hope that is not your argument, because that is not a good argument.

It’s a statement of fact. To all evidence we are alone.

 

[deanrd]

How do you scientifically prove magical creation? No, I think I’ll stick with science.

 

[ding]

The men who wrote the Genesis fable were pretty careless. The gods lied, Satan told the truth.

Funny. At least, I hope you're being sarcastic. How were the men who wrote Genesis being careless since they?

Yes, I can prove the gods lied with evidence just like in a court case? I spelled it out here: if not evolution

Hm.. okay, so you think it's allegory. But so does ding because he's Catholic, and like a good Catholic boy, he listens to Pope Francis. That said, allegory doesn't make it the truth. I've said this before and that one has to use a priori thinking and not a posteriori thinking to argue the evidence for God and ascertain what is truth. Surely, as a non-believer you would agree to using rational thinking or facts, reasoning, and historical truth?

Can you disprove the above just like in a court case? Subpoena the gods as your first rebuttal witnesses.

Unfortunately, one can't subpoena God who doesn't live in this dimension. What we have to do is present the evidence and that is the universe had a beginning. We agreed on this because of the CMB and big bang. That leads to Kalam's Cosmological Argument and God. One can also use the ontological argument for God and that is:

View attachment 278212

Evolutionary thinking and history is from the ancient times when humans formulated a posteriori thinking. It doesn't mean empiricism back then.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

You see when you state biological evolution or ToE, then we already have the single cell. I've talked about how Darwin did not create the ToE as many people think, but just explained how it worked. This is why we have to use evolutionary thinking and history to discuss the pseudoscience of spontaneious thinking and abiogenesis.

Otherwise, why blame mythical characters for the fears and superstitions that haunt you? Let go of the things that keep you a slave to fear and ignorance and you will be a slave no more.

This doesn't make any sense. It's like a non sequitur. We are not discussing mythical characters, fears and superstitions that haunt people. We are discussing the supernatural only in the first two books of Genesis. Maybe this chart is easier for you to understand. My position is on the bottom.

Water covered Earth is water vapor with volcanic gases. God created the EMS the first day and what he deemed necessary for the heavens and Earth. This would include oxygen, O2, Higgs field and boson, Planck's constant, volcanic gases, and more. He started to stretch out the heavens on the first day starting spacetime. We also have the fine tuning facts on the first two days and separation of day and night, i.e. light and dark, and the creation of the atmosphere with that of the oceans below. Notice with the big bang, some of the details of the formations are missing and that it was assumed that the universe started from invisible quantum particles. Where is your witness for that? Since there are no witnesses, then how do you explain how the first two days events came into being? Much has been made of singularity and cosmic inflation, but the details are lacking. What were the early gases in your opinion? I don't think you answered that. Thus, it is hard to understand what your thesis is exactly and sounds like magic.

Ultimately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy as written in biblical tales and fables is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn with regard to the time in human history when the ebb and flow of life was dictated by a ruthlessness of societies and a nature that was largely not understood. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

I tried to explain this and that it isn't based on fear of the superstitious, but understanding an all-powerful and all-knowing creator. The metaphysical is not just on the creationist side, but now the secular/atheist scientists are using the metaphysical big bang to explain universe ex nihilo and abiogenesis to explain creatio ex nihilo.

That’s news to me.

You’re just a slightly different flavor of Breezewood.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I won’t interfere in your religion. But you shouldn’t project your superstition to “every scientist on the planet”.

Hmm, no, it's pretty much almost all of them that believe life likely evolved at least twice instead of only and exactly once. You can check for yourself, if you want. That's an ubiquitous piece of modern science. Go ahead, try to find the scientists who say life likely evolved only and exactly once in our universe. I bet you can't find a single one.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s a statement of fact. To all evidence we are alone.

False, since we havent taken inventory of all the evidence. Or even a tiny bit if it.

 

[james bond]

Hasn't abiogenesis been destroyed in this thread? 1) There is no primordial soup. 2) Lightning will cause hydrogen and oxygen to explode in early atmosphere. 3) The geysers have water which dissolves the amino acids. 4) Atheists/ags and their religious scientists are usually wrong.

 

[DOTR]

It’s a statement of fact. To all evidence we are alone.

False, since we havent taken inventory of all the evidence. Or even a tiny bit if it.

Ok give me a tiny bit of it.

 

[DOTR]

I won’t interfere in your religion. But you shouldn’t project your superstition to “every scientist on the planet”.

Hmm, no, it's pretty much almost all of them that believe life likely evolved at least twice instead of only and exactly once. You can check for yourself, if you want. That's an ubiquitous piece of modern science. Go ahead, try to find the scientists who say life likely evolved only and exactly once in our universe. I bet you can't find a single one.

I’m not interested in what they “believe”. Their religion is their own business.

Present some evidence that life evolved twice.

Not that it helps you even if it were true (which it's not). You’ve been desperately defending your religion so long you don’t even remember what you were defending against originally.

 

[MoonPie]

As for coincidences in holy books:

What would we expect? When tasked with imagining how "there is no life" became "there is life", what would we expect people thousands of years ago to dream up? That it came from kryptonite, or that it arose from the merging of two black hole?

They were utterly ignorant of the universe. So, they had dirt. And air. And water. And fire. Which of these is substantial, like animals' bodies? Dirt. And voila, humans came from dirt. Oh, and magic.Of course.

Is this coincidence really supposed to impress anyone?

And is it coincidence, anyway? Not really...life formed from what he have here (not actually from dirt, but hey, we will just chalk that one up to "poetry"). The myth was imagined here, using what we have here. We dont gasp in awe when two kids on other sides of the planet make similar towers out of wooden blocks. The both had the same medium to work with.

"They were utterly ignorant of the universe"

I think not

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.
And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.​

Big Bang theory, proposed by a Belgian priest named Georges Lemaitre, hailed by Pope Pious XII in 1951

"when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies."
​

Atom - Wikipedia

The idea that matter is made up of discrete units is a very old idea, appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India. The word atomos, meaning "uncuttable", was coined by the ancient Greek philosophers Leucippus and his pupil Democritus (c. 460 – c. 370 BC).[1][2][3][4] Democritus taught that atoms were infinite in number, uncreated, and eternal, and that the qualities of an object result from the kind of atoms that compose it.​

Well, not entirely accurate but that was damn good guess for a couple of guys in 400 BC.

I think by "dirt" they mean earth, and we are made of the earth.

"We dont gasp in awe when two kids on other sides of the planet make similar towers out of wooden blocks. The[y] both had the same medium to work with"

It isn't the wood lol. They would make similar towers out of wood and clay. The human brain tends to find the same patterns appealing like, for instance, spirals.

Spiral - Wikipedia

 

[Hollie]

Hasn't abiogenesis been destroyed in this thread? 1) There is no primordial soup. 2) Lightning will cause hydrogen and oxygen to explode in early atmosphere. 3) The geysers have water which dissolves the amino acids. 4) Atheists/ags and their religious scientists are usually wrong.

Why do you think abiogenesis has been destroyed? Abiogenesis did happen. I think what has been destroyed are baseless claims to magic and supernaturalism. Religious fears and ignorance are never a good mechanism to reach an understanding of the natural world.

 

[Hollie]

The men who wrote the Genesis fable were pretty careless. The gods lied, Satan told the truth.

Funny. At least, I hope you're being sarcastic. How were the men who wrote Genesis being careless since they?

Yes, I can prove the gods lied with evidence just like in a court case? I spelled it out here: if not evolution

Hm.. okay, so you think it's allegory. But so does ding because he's Catholic, and like a good Catholic boy, he listens to Pope Francis. That said, allegory doesn't make it the truth. I've said this before and that one has to use a priori thinking and not a posteriori thinking to argue the evidence for God and ascertain what is truth. Surely, as a non-believer you would agree to using rational thinking or facts, reasoning, and historical truth?

Can you disprove the above just like in a court case? Subpoena the gods as your first rebuttal witnesses.

Unfortunately, one can't subpoena God who doesn't live in this dimension. What we have to do is present the evidence and that is the universe had a beginning. We agreed on this because of the CMB and big bang. That leads to Kalam's Cosmological Argument and God. One can also use the ontological argument for God and that is:

View attachment 278212

Evolutionary thinking and history is from the ancient times when humans formulated a posteriori thinking. It doesn't mean empiricism back then.

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

You see when you state biological evolution or ToE, then we already have the single cell. I've talked about how Darwin did not create the ToE as many people think, but just explained how it worked. This is why we have to use evolutionary thinking and history to discuss the pseudoscience of spontaneious thinking and abiogenesis.

Otherwise, why blame mythical characters for the fears and superstitions that haunt you? Let go of the things that keep you a slave to fear and ignorance and you will be a slave no more.

This doesn't make any sense. It's like a non sequitur. We are not discussing mythical characters, fears and superstitions that haunt people. We are discussing the supernatural only in the first two books of Genesis. Maybe this chart is easier for you to understand. My position is on the bottom.

Water covered Earth is water vapor with volcanic gases. God created the EMS the first day and what he deemed necessary for the heavens and Earth. This would include oxygen, O2, Higgs field and boson, Planck's constant, volcanic gases, and more. He started to stretch out the heavens on the first day starting spacetime. We also have the fine tuning facts on the first two days and separation of day and night, i.e. light and dark, and the creation of the atmosphere with that of the oceans below. Notice with the big bang, some of the details of the formations are missing and that it was assumed that the universe started from invisible quantum particles. Where is your witness for that? Since there are no witnesses, then how do you explain how the first two days events came into being? Much has been made of singularity and cosmic inflation, but the details are lacking. What were the early gases in your opinion? I don't think you answered that. Thus, it is hard to understand what your thesis is exactly and sounds like magic.

Ultimately, the worth of Jesus' philosophy as written in biblical tales and fables is emptied of meaning because he ultimately attempts to scare people into accepting his word. The character of Jesus was drawn with regard to the time in human history when the ebb and flow of life was dictated by a ruthlessness of societies and a nature that was largely not understood. Despite the occasional overt threat, Jesus' character focuses on the implied threat: A) There is a heaven. B) There is a hell. C) Do as I command and you'll go to heaven. Then Jesus stops speaking. But we all know exactly what D would be: D) Don't do as I command and you'll go to hell.

I tried to explain this and that it isn't based on fear of the superstitious, but understanding an all-powerful and all-knowing creator. The metaphysical is not just on the creationist side, but now the secular/atheist scientists are using the metaphysical big bang to explain universe ex nihilo and abiogenesis to explain creatio ex nihilo.

Why would you think cartoons and silly exercises in circular reasoning are an answer to anything?

 

[james bond]

You’re just a slightly different flavor of Breezewood.

Heh. You agree with him on big bang .

 

[james bond]

Why do you think abiogenesis has been destroyed? Abiogenesis did happen. I think what has been destroyed are baseless claims to magic and supernaturalism. Religious fears and ignorance are never a good mechanism to reach an understanding of the natural world.

Why would you think cartoons and silly exercises in circular reasoning are an answer to anything?

You could not answer my questions, so it didn't happen. However, it doesn't matter anymore because God created everything. Besides, Fort Fun Indiana is still hoping something comes from the geyser. That's pretty stupid, but funny .

 

[Hollie]

Why do you think abiogenesis has been destroyed? Abiogenesis did happen. I think what has been destroyed are baseless claims to magic and supernaturalism. Religious fears and ignorance are never a good mechanism to reach an understanding of the natural world.

Why would you think cartoons and silly exercises in circular reasoning are an answer to anything?

You could not answer my questions, so it didn't happen. However, it doesn't matter anymore because God created everything. Besides, Fort Fun Indiana is still hoping something comes from the geyser. That's pretty stupid, but funny .

You didn't pose questions, you made statements you could never hope to support.

Your unsupported claims to your gods creating everything is identical to those promoting different gods creating everything. Not surprisingly, none of the claims to any of these creator, designer gods are supportable.

 

[ding]

You’re just a slightly different flavor of Breezewood.

Heh. You agree with him on big bang .

You’re just a slightly different flavor of Breezewood.

Heh. You agree with him on big bang .

Hardly. He believes the universe has always existed. I believe it was created from nothing.