Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
250
Points
90
The following article reviews the most relevant findings in abiogenetic research to date and touches on the potential metaphysical presuppositions for science in the light of those findings. Where do we go when the findings seem to show that a natural mechanism of sheer chemistry for the origin of life is implausible, cannot be given and/or is indemonstrable? In light of the findings, I propose a return to the open-ended, methodological naturalism of tradition, that which was applied to the scientific enterprise before Darwin. The assumption of the Darwinian paradigm obviously begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the potential necessity of intelligent design. I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

By Michael Rawlings
February 4, 2009



While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design. The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science. . . .

What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic mellanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic spark discharge system, which increased air flow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,789
Reaction score
3,481
Points
1,115
The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.

Religious extremists have a need to discredit science discovery because knowledge and learning tend to supplant fear and superstition.




Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life

Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth. Despite the enormous progress that has been made since the Miller-Urey experiment, abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists' arguments.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure, and creationists have been only too happy to provide ludicrously huge numbers purporting to be the odds against such a thing. However, even if these calculations are correct, they are irrelevant, as modern theories of abiogenesis require nothing of the kind to happen. This article briefly illustrates what abiogenesis really is and shows why the creationists' probability calculations do not matter.

Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions
Creationists have asserted that a statistical principle called "Borel's Law" mathematically demonstrates that abiogenesis is impossible. This article explains what Borel's Law is and shows that Borel himself clearly understood that his law was not relevant to the probability of the origin of life.

Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life
Creationists often claim that Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and hence any naturalistic origin of life. This article shows what Pasteur really demonstrated and gives a history of the subject from early ideas of spontaneous generation to modern ideas about the origin of life.

The Origin of Life
A discussion of the main models on the spontaneous origin of life that aims to show how cellular complexity could have gradually emerged from simple systems - in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Central issues like the composition of the early atmosphere of the Earth and the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars are reviewed as well.

Review of the Miller-Urey experiment chapter of Icons of Evolution
Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute has made false claims about abiogenesis research in his book Icons of Evolution.

An Index to Creationist Claims: Abiogenesis
Brief replies to various origin-of-life claims by antievolutionists.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
41,734
Reaction score
4,081
Points
1,855
What a stupid oped, devoid of any actual, empirical arguments. Also, while abiogenesis may contradict the silly, childish, abrahamic creation myth, it does not necessarily contradict other, theistic religious paradigms. So, what we have here is a christian nutball so steeped in his own, magical horseshit that he cant see past the end of his own nose.

So,a guy who is absolutely certain, without a shred of evidence, that his magical horseshit is absolutely true is criticizing scientists for not yet having enough evidence to be absolutely true of something, even though they are not claiming to be so anyway.

Of course.
 
Last edited:

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
41,734
Reaction score
4,081
Points
1,855
And, worth noting:

Abiogensis is a foregone conclusion. While we may not know how it happened, we can safely assume it is a fact and did, indeed, happen.
 

fncceo

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
23,819
Reaction score
6,951
Points
290
while abiogenesis may contradict the silly, childish, abrahamic creation myth,
It actually doesn't.

Life formed from inorganic substances and imbued with animus is a poetic description of what we suspect is the actual process.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
41,734
Reaction score
4,081
Points
1,855
while abiogenesis may contradict the silly, childish, abrahamic creation myth,
It actually doesn't.

Life formed from inorganic substances and imbued with animus is a poetic description of what we suspect is the actual process.
Says you. And, trust me, i like the way you think. But not everyone is so willing to cast aside the wording of the myth as allegory, or poetry.

"God created man"...via the processes of abiogenesis and evolution. That doesn't seem so hard to accept, if one is already willing to accept the first premise.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
41,734
Reaction score
4,081
Points
1,855
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.
 
Last edited:
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
250
Points
90
The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.
Since you apparently did not read my article and are not addressing it's pertinent observations regarding the objectively presented findings of abiogenetic research, your post is dismissed. To be sure, I do evaluate what the findings tell us, but in the light of the voluminously cited, peer-reviewed research. I have no interest in the he-said-she-said baby talk of atheist know-nothings. This article was not written for the gullible acolytes of scientism. Nor will I discuss the matter with such outside the content of this article.

Off topic.
 

MisterBeale

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
25,598
Reaction score
6,612
Points
280
The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.
Since you apparently did not read my article and are not addressing it's pertinent observations regarding the objectively presented findings of abiogenetic research, your post is dismissed. To be sure, I do evaluate what the findings tell us, but in the light of the voluminously cited, peer-reviewed research. I have no interest in the he-said-she-said baby talk of atheist know-nothings. This article was not written for the gullible acolytes of scientism. Nor will I discuss the matter with such outside the content of this article.

Off topic.
I did read it, and it only addressed very specific hypothetical conditions of one experiment, reproducing the hypothetical conditions of one place and one point in time in Earth's ancient history.

The planet is huge, the solar system even larger. The possible conditions and precise time window of abiogenesis even larger. So this article really, only refutes one localized area and time condition. It doesn't disprove every possible scenario.

For instance, no where in there did it seek to disprove that meteorites of tholins, could have crashed into the right temperature pools of water, at just the right time, and got the ball rolling. :dunno:
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
250
Points
90
while abiogenesis may contradict the silly, childish, abrahamic creation myth.
It actually doesn't.

Life formed from inorganic substances and imbued with animus is a poetic description of what we suspect is the actual process.
fncceo, while your reading of Genesis might be compatible with the notion that God imbued chemistry with the property of organizing inorganic substances into some lifeform, I say again in the light of the findings, there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life. Of course, living creatures are comprised of the substances of the material world, but I say that's the end of the metaphor. In other words, life was formed from nonliving material, not by nonliving material. Abiogenesis is nonsense. God directly formed lifeforms from inorganic substances on the spot!
 

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
60,731
Reaction score
12,122
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Yeah, well we really don't know how life began. People who claim it is part of Evolutionary theory are mistaken as evolution is about the evolution of life already started. Abiogenesis is more of a materialistic conjecture about how it might have possibly happened, and it isn't very believable but there are few options. Stanly Miller is little more than a straw on the water.

We should realize that our Solar System formed from the remnant of a Supernovae since we have plenty of iron around in our rocky inner planets and once iron forms inside stars it is the death phase of the star. We also know from the presence of heavy elements like Platinum, Gold, etc, that a collision of two white dwarfs near us also added to our solar systems formation as well. What else might have happened while our Solar System was beginning to form? I am very interested in whether they find gold in 16 Psyche. IF there is gold within it, I think it proves that a white dwarf collision helped to form our solar system and not merely a supernovae.

So, anyway, I think it is fairly apparent that life is the result of a transpermia from a prior solar system that we really no very little about. Perhaps there was a deep dark planet of extreme heat that also had constant electrical currents moving through it? Or maybe it was a very hot gas giant where the pressures and cloud lightning were constant enough to do the trick?

I don't know how the Creator started life, but I do know that He did it because He made the Universe for us, each one of us as individual souls.

The how is just a matter of curiosity.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
250
Points
90
I did read it, and it only addressed very specific hypothetical conditions of one experiment, reproducing the hypothetical conditions of one place and one point in time in Earth's ancient history.

The planet is huge, the solar system even larger. The possible conditions and precise time window of abiogenesis even larger. So this article really, only refutes one localized area and time condition. It doesn't disprove every possible scenario.

For instance, no where in there did it seek to disprove that meteorites of tholins could have crashed into the right temperature pools of water, at just the right time, and got the ball rolling. :dunno:
I don't know what article you read, but it wasn't this one. If you had, you'ld realize just how incoherent, uninformed, and essentially meaningless your post is. The article discusses the findings of literally dozens of experiments in detail, entailing the entire gamut of environmental and atmospheric conditions from the geologically earliest period on. It discusses the availability of indispensable materials (abiotic derivatives and organic precursors). It discusses the available sources of energy. It discusses the potentialities of intergalactic synthesis, the acquisition of organic materials from space debris, including comets and meteorites. Who'ld a thunk it? The availability of certain materials from which fundamental precursors can be synthesized under controlled laboratory conditions is of little significance in the face of the myriad and seemingly insurmountable obstacles in raw nature that would conspire against the chemical pathways of prebiotics well in front of the first stirrings of life, and the findings of Miller-Urey underscore just one of these many obstacles. If you click on the link in red in the OP, you'll find a whole new world of science that just might cool your jets a bit for the prospects of abiogenesis—a little dose of reality.
 
Last edited:

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,789
Reaction score
3,481
Points
1,115
The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.
Since you apparently did not read my article and are not addressing it's pertinent observations regarding the objectively presented findings of abiogenetic research, your post is dismissed. To be sure, I do evaluate what the findings tell us, but in the light of the voluminously cited, peer-reviewed research. I have no interest in the he-said-she-said baby talk of atheist know-nothings. This article was not written for the gullible acolytes of scientism. Nor will I discuss the matter with such outside the content of this article.

Off topic.
You poor, dear. I couldn’t help but notice that your cutting and pasting included references to the most notorious charlatans and and quacks representing the industry of xtian fundamentalism.

You included Dean Kenyon in your roll call of quacks.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Dean Kenyon

Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous.


I couldn’t help but notice you also referenced the charlatans at the ICR. Perhaps you could tell us what research they do? What peer reviewed papers have the ICR quacks published?

If you’re hoping to denigrate science with the help of fundie zealots, that’s poor cricket, Laddie.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
250
Points
90
You poor, dear. I couldn’t help but notice that your cutting and pasting included references to the most notorious charlatans and and quacks representing the industry of xtian fundamentalism.
Cutting and pasting? What in the world are you talking about, you lunatic? Dean Kenyon? The ICR?

The article does not contain or discuss one word from any work or paper or article or letter produced by these sources. Not one! Zilch! Nada! That's why they're not listed in the bibliography, you braying jackass. They're listed under "Suggested Reading" strictly for those theists, atheists or agnostics who might be interested in reading up on abiogenesis from the perspective of creationist biologists in the field, given that I only discuss the peer-reviewed papers of the true believes in the field—the seminal papers of the leading lights of abiogenetic research from Miller-Urey on. So once again, it's obvious that you didn't read the article. The topic is not Hollie's contempt for all things theistic. The topic is abiogenesis, Hollie's holy grail. I don't appeal to the evaluations or the research of other theists in the article. All of the research in the article is that of your people, Hollie! Your folks. Your scientists. Oh, wait! I do quote a theologian near the end of the article to underscore a point I make about Darwinism in general:

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury​

Other than that, it's all your folks against little ol' me. Surely, you can read the article and the cited research, directly quote that research and my evaluations of it, and then show me in front of God and everybody why I'm wrong. Hell, I even did the research for you. Until you do that . . .

Off topic.
 

MisterBeale

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
25,598
Reaction score
6,612
Points
280
I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.

And judging from your responses in this thread?




You are not to be reasoned, engaged, or talked to about this stance in any way what-so-ever.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,789
Reaction score
3,481
Points
1,115
You poor, dear. I couldn’t help but notice that your cutting and pasting included references to the most notorious charlatans and and quacks representing the industry of xtian fundamentalism.
Cutting and pasting? What in the world are you talking about, you lunatic? Dean Kenyon? The ICR?

The article does not contain or discuss one word from any work or paper or article or letter produced by these sources. Not one! Zilch! Nada! That's why they're not listed in the bibliography, you braying jackass. They're listed under "Suggested Reading" strictly for those theists, atheists or agnostics who might be interested in reading up on abiogenesis from the perspective of creationist biologists in the field, given that I only discuss the peer-reviewed papers of the true believes in the field—the seminal papers of the leading lights of abiogenetic research from Miller-Urey on. So once again, it's obvious that you didn't read the article. The topic is not Hollie's contempt for all things theistic. The topic is abiogenesis, Hollie's holy grail. I don't appeal to the evaluations or the research of other theists in the article. All of the research in the article is that of your people, Hollie! Your folks. Your scientists. Oh, wait! I do quote a theologian near the end of the article to underscore a point I make about Darwinism in general:

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury​

Other than that, it's all your folks against little ol' me. Surely, you can read the article and the cited research, directly quote that research and my evaluations of it, and then show me in front of God and everybody why I'm wrong. Hell, I even did the research for you. Until you do that . . .

Off topic.
Your emotional outbursts serve only to further discredit your unfounded claims. It was you who included links to quacks such as Dean Kenyon and charlatans at the ICR. When you slather your rants with such slogans as "Neo-Darwinians", it's pretty clear that you have an agenda that coincides with the most notorious of the fundamentalist Christian ministries.

The origins of biological life on the planet are derived from the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.

Against that, you assert that supernatural entities using supernatural means, snapped their supernatural digits and supernaturally "poofed" life into existence.

Please make your case for Amun Ra, or any other entity / formidable collection of unionized supernatural entities responsible for life on the planet.

BTW, your appeals to "little ol'me" are odd. When you're not intellectually or emotionally prepared to accept challenges to your unfounded and unsupported statements, dont put them in a public forum.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
250
Points
90
And judging from your responses in this thread? You are not to be reasoned, engaged, or talked to about this stance in any way whatsoever.
Translation: I believe abiogenesis happened, but I don't know enough about the topic to civilly discuss the reasons why I think chemistry did produce the materials and information of life, so I'm just going to insult Ringtone without knowing anything about him or the reasons why he's convinced that abiogenesis didn't happen. I know, I'll make him out to be a closed-minded, intellectual bigot, because, after all, he dared to disagree with me and, of course, it logically follows that persons who are certain about things are necessarily close-minded, intellectual bigots.

By the way, Joey Tribbiani, I'm Michael Rawlings, the author of the article. The article is a comprehensive survey of the findings of the most seminal, abiogenetic research to date. That's how I knew you hadn't read the article as you claimed. Remember what you said? You assumed the article was all about Miller-Urey, didn't you? You're a poser, aren't you?

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect and learning on the matter. You're not qualified to critique my evaluation of the findings. You're the close-minded, intellectual bigot.
 
Last edited:
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
250
Points
90
You poor, dear. I couldn’t help but notice that your cutting and pasting included references to the most notorious charlatans and and quacks representing the industry of xtian fundamentalism.
Cutting and pasting? What in the world are you talking about, you lunatic? Dean Kenyon? The ICR?

The article does not contain or discuss one word from any work or paper or article or letter produced by these sources. Not one! Zilch! Nada! That's why they're not listed in the bibliography, you braying jackass. They're listed under "Suggested Reading" strictly for those theists, atheists or agnostics who might be interested in reading up on abiogenesis from the perspective of creationist biologists in the field, given that I only discuss the peer-reviewed papers of the true believes in the field—the seminal papers of the leading lights of abiogenetic research from Miller-Urey on. So once again, it's obvious that you didn't read the article. The topic is not Hollie's contempt for all things theistic. The topic is abiogenesis, Hollie's holy grail. I don't appeal to the evaluations or the research of other theists in the article. All of the research in the article is that of your people, Hollie! Your folks. Your scientists. Oh, wait! I do quote a theologian near the end of the article to underscore a point I make about Darwinism in general:

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury​

Other than that, it's all your folks against little ol' me. Surely, you can read the article and the cited research, directly quote that research and my evaluations of it, and then show me in front of God and everybody why I'm wrong. Hell, I even did the research for you. Until you do that . . .

Off topic.
Your emotional outbursts serve only to further discredit your unfounded claims. It was you who included links to quacks such as Dean Kenyon and charlatans at the ICR. When you slather your rants with such slogans as "Neo-Darwinians", it's pretty clear that you have an agenda that coincides with the most notorious of the fundamentalist Christian ministries.

The origins of biological life on the planet are derived from the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.

Against that, you assert that supernatural entities using supernatural means, snapped their supernatural digits and supernaturally "poofed" life into existence.

Please make your case for Amun Ra, or any other entity / formidable collection of unionized supernatural entities responsible for life on the planet.

BTW, your appeals to "little ol'me" are odd. When you're not intellectually or emotionally prepared to accept challenges to your unfounded and unsupported statements, dont put them in a public forum.
Whatever you say, looney toon.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
35,789
Reaction score
3,481
Points
1,115
You poor, dear. I couldn’t help but notice that your cutting and pasting included references to the most notorious charlatans and and quacks representing the industry of xtian fundamentalism.
Cutting and pasting? What in the world are you talking about, you lunatic? Dean Kenyon? The ICR?

The article does not contain or discuss one word from any work or paper or article or letter produced by these sources. Not one! Zilch! Nada! That's why they're not listed in the bibliography, you braying jackass. They're listed under "Suggested Reading" strictly for those theists, atheists or agnostics who might be interested in reading up on abiogenesis from the perspective of creationist biologists in the field, given that I only discuss the peer-reviewed papers of the true believes in the field—the seminal papers of the leading lights of abiogenetic research from Miller-Urey on. So once again, it's obvious that you didn't read the article. The topic is not Hollie's contempt for all things theistic. The topic is abiogenesis, Hollie's holy grail. I don't appeal to the evaluations or the research of other theists in the article. All of the research in the article is that of your people, Hollie! Your folks. Your scientists. Oh, wait! I do quote a theologian near the end of the article to underscore a point I make about Darwinism in general:

By what process of “angelization” could men have become cognizant of their random origins and spectators of all time and existence, as though from some superior and independent vantage-point? Do the Neo-Darwinians, like so many other system-builders, desert the system of which they are the authors, claiming special cognitive principles that cannot be justified within the system? —Richard Spilsbury​

Other than that, it's all your folks against little ol' me. Surely, you can read the article and the cited research, directly quote that research and my evaluations of it, and then show me in front of God and everybody why I'm wrong. Hell, I even did the research for you. Until you do that . . .

Off topic.
Your emotional outbursts serve only to further discredit your unfounded claims. It was you who included links to quacks such as Dean Kenyon and charlatans at the ICR. When you slather your rants with such slogans as "Neo-Darwinians", it's pretty clear that you have an agenda that coincides with the most notorious of the fundamentalist Christian ministries.

The origins of biological life on the planet are derived from the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.

Against that, you assert that supernatural entities using supernatural means, snapped their supernatural digits and supernaturally "poofed" life into existence.

Please make your case for Amun Ra, or any other entity / formidable collection of unionized supernatural entities responsible for life on the planet.

BTW, your appeals to "little ol'me" are odd. When you're not intellectually or emotionally prepared to accept challenges to your unfounded and unsupported statements, dont put them in a public forum.
Whatever you say, looney toon.
That's quite a retreat.

The act of considered thought seems to defy you. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

While all of the mechanisms that allowed biological life on the planet to first spark to life are not understood, abiogenesis and then the mechanisms of evolution are fully consistent with natural processes.

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top