| dsgrue3 said:
If you were logical, you wouldn't have written such nonsense. Abiogensis isn't "coming from nothing" and it's already been replicated, in part, in a laboratory. Miller-Urey experiment simulates what scientists believe comprised the Earth at the time simulating specific effects like lightning with a particular chemical composition and found that amino acids formed. These are the building blocks of life. You show a fundamental lack of understanding of a very grand theory. I suggest actually learning of what it is before commenting about something to which you know naught. Absolutely no evidence of a supernatural being and yet you see this "possibility" as 100% true (0% chance in real world of being False)? lmfao. You aren't remotely logical in regard to this matter. |
You are a very rude poster. But I won't report you this time, just want to point to you where you are abrasive. (underlined)
Anyways, beyond that, let me explain your fallacy fallacy and cherry-picking.
I said "coming from nothing", I absolutely meant life coming from non-living matter, pardon my colloquialism. Proof that I knew that is from my counter-point earlier in the thread against your definition of existence. (remember, I mentioned how did matter exist if sentient beings didn't observe it, yet matter is required for their abiogenesis). Here, your selective memory served you well.
As for 0% chance for abiogenesis being true doesn't make God 100% true, but it makes it very difficult, for me personally, to find an answer that isn't "God". Then, my PoV goes way beyond abiogenesis, but into "who is God?" as described in the bible.
Remember, every time you point the finger, there are 3 pointing back. Best tip I can give you? Just calm down.
(And the kind of post above is why I, personally, do not enjoy talking religion with certain so-called, self-professed "scientifically" thinking atheists. These specific types of people are very abrasive and turn the dialogue into a crusade-witchhunt, and it's very unpleasant.)
