Almost all of the stories are logically bs if you take them literally.

Isn't that what we've been trying to say?

Well you guys are seeming all high and mighty, so answere this. How was life supposed have have come from inamate objects (the origins of said objects you can only explain as "poof, objects") that have no will, intelligence or power to do anything other than the basic nature of rocks, gasses etc.

Have you studied abiogenesis? Basically, what we can demonstrate at this point is that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can come from non-living material. So while we don't know exactly how life did form, we do know that it is possible for life to come from non-life.

furthermore how we're they supposed to have gotten any energy in the first place?

It depends on exactly what you mean by energy, but energy exists independent of life. But since I read later in your post that the answer you expect is "I don't know" so you can respond, we'll go with that for the moment.

And remember, after you say to yourself or to me "I don't know" or "not a clue" when we say something like that then you go ahead and say that all of Christianity is idiocy because the bible doesn't expressly say just how every single animal in the ram was fed.

The difference here is that when we reject the claims of Christianity, we aren't making positive claims that Christianity is absolutely impossible. So when we look at the things that we do know within a reasonable degree of certainty and then see that there are still question marks, the only intellectually honest thing we can do is leave them as question marks and investigate. Christianity, on the other hand, is a proposed hypothesis (at best) to the questions of life, but it only answers with more questions. God, by definition, is infinitely more complex than the universe, demanding that he need an even more complicated explanation than what he is trying to explain in the first place.
If it clarifies the point, my or anyone else's questions about the Bible don't necessarily mean that you have to be able to answer them or the Bible is absolutely false. But if the Bible was proven to be 100% accurate tomorrow, we'd go from investigating the questions that you've posed, and others, about the world we know, to investigating the "I don't knows" in the Bible. Asking questions about your proposed hypothesis is only natural, especially with many different denominations of Christianity alone and other religions.

Yes, I know what that is and no there isn't any real proof now is there? Another but of guesswork because that's the only thig to fit the agenda.

There isn't a formed explanation of exactly how it happened, but we've demonstrated that abiogenesis can happen, if that's your question. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that amino acids can be generated from non-living material under normal physical laws similar to earth. Again, we don't have a time machine to observe how it happened but from this experiment we know it can happen. We wouldn't know evolution is a scientific fact either if we had to know exactly how it happened, because all we can demonstrate with evolution is that it does happen now and that it did happen in the past.

It's pretty obvious that it's been disproved, a 3 year old could have told you that.

I'm not sure what you mean by disproved, particularily since a three year old doesn't have access to the related experiments. How would you go about proving that something can't happen? Do you just mean that it sounds really unlikely or impossible, because that isn't how science works. We investigate the truth before making any claims about it.

But now what's your theory since it had to come from somewhere, oh that's right, there is no God so there is no explanation since it wasn't created by a higher being and it didn't just appear.

By "it" I assume you mean the universe or matter or something equivilent. Again, atheism does not make claims about the origin of the universe or even science. It is the response to theistic claims as unsupported by evidence, nothing more. Science does not make claims to knowledge about anything until it has been investigated and confirmed.
I don't know how the universe was formed, but neither do the religious that claim to know it was God, because even if you did know God exists you weren't there and God most likely hasn't shown you how he created the world in a verifiable way. "I don't know" is better than "It was God, prove me wrong!" That's the argument from ignorance fallacy.

I don't suppose that there's any actual profe of that (back to abiogenesis)? Or what chemicles or how much etc. if we can't even figure that out or recreate it than how did it happen so perfectly on accident?

If you're looking for the exact way that abiogenesis happened, we don't have that. But what do you mean it happened "so perfectly"? There is no design in the way life formed and thereafter the way life evolved, and there's no reason to thing that the outline for life had any type of design. In fact, if anything, I'd say we're as far from perfect as life could be. Our reality revolves around life taking other life to survive (animals, plants) or losing its own life. Surely an omnibenevolent god could have come up with a way to live and let live?

I just looked up the definition of that on my IPod's dictionary and it says "the technical term for spontaneous generation" so there you go, stuff randomly appearing just like you said was disproven.

It's life coming from non-life material. The definition you're using is not the definition that scientists investigating abiogenesis use.

Has man ever created life? A livig cell, a single love cell? No. And even if by chance it is done all that proves is that of takes great skill and knowledge to create it.

That's the wrong conclusion. There are many things that man can't create because they're naturally occuring. We don't look at something and say that because we can't create it, something more intelligent than us is therefore required to create it.
It sounds like you're trying to go in the direction of the argument from design, and feel free to ignore this tangent if I'm mistaken. We don't recognize design by complexity or intuition. We recognize design by contrasting it with naturally occuring. When we see a painting and a tree, we have examples of paintings having been designed and no examples of naturally occuring paintings. When we look at the tree, we have examples of naturally occuring trees but no examples of designed trees. When we look at the universe, we have no other examples of universes having been created. So I don't know how we can say that everything requires a designer that is infinitely more complex than the universe. Doesn't that imply that God was created by an even higher power?

I'm gonna post a little about theism and atheism so we can get our definitions clear. Not all atheists or theists are going to agree with these definitions, but just so those with whom I converse know precisely what I mean when I say I'm an atheist.
Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. Theists make a claim that a god or gods exist. Atheism is the lack of belief that a god or gods exist. Atheists reject that claim that a god or gods exist. Rejecting a claim is not the same thing as saying the claim is false. Atheism is not the assertion that no gods exist. Some atheists may assert that no gods exist, and if they do they are required to present evidence because they are making a claim. Atheism is not a claim, but a response to a claim.
What this means is that you can't prove theism by disproving evolution, abiogensis, or the big bang. These are attempts to disprove atheism. Even if all these things were false, we would be in a position where we do not have an explanation. We are not in a position where we accept the god hypothesis for lack of something better. That's an argument from ignorance fallacy, meaning that "I am ignorant of any other explanations so I'm going with this one" (and ignorant meaning lacking knowledge, not stupid btw).
Agnosticism and gnosticism go to what you know, while atheism and theism go to what you believe. Someone who is agnostic does not claim to know whether or not a god exists, while someone who is gnostic does claim to know whether or not a god exists. So, a gnostic atheist claims to know that there are no gods. An agnostic atheist lacks belief in a god or gods but doesn't claim to know there are no gods. An agnostic theist believes in a god or gods but doesn't claim to know that a god or gods exist. And a gnostic theist claims to know that there is a god or gods.

When we're talking about the possibility of a god, what we need to realize is that when we talk about the existence of anything, the time to believe is when existence has been demonstrated. There might be a god for all I know. But until somebody demonstrates that a god exists, I am justified in rejecting theistic claims as unsupported, because they are.

Finally, let's talk about arguments from incredulity. These arguments basically assert that because the odds are unlikely that the universe would happen this way, therefore god. First off, when we're talking about probability, the odds of the universe happening this way are equal to the odds of it happening a specifically different way. It's the equivilant of saying "what are the odds that I flipped a coin three times and got heads, heads, heads?" The same as the odds of getting tails, heads, tails. Just because the universe forming this way is a 1/1000 chance (I'm just using a number that's easier to quantify, but pretend it's a trillion if it helps) that doesn't mean that the odds of the universe forming with a god are 999/1000. It means that we had one thousand different 1/1000 ways the universe could have formed and it formed this way.
Secondly, when we're discussing the probability of a god or gods existing, we can't put numbers to that. We can't even demonstrate that the supernatural is possible, so there is no way to verify how likely or unlikely a god is. So even if the probability of the universe forming was one in a trillion, the probability of a god could be anywhere between 1/1 and 0/1, and we have no way to compare the two.

Anyway, that's what I've got for right now. I'll be back on the forum in a couple hours to respond to any posts, so if you respond immediately I may not see you right away.

I notice that we often ask what religion someone follows when debating them, but we never get asked what we believe. I wonder if this is the theists simply not looking at things from the other side, if they aren't knowledgeable about the terms, or if it's that they simply don't care because they think they're right.

Anyways, I'm going to go ahead and state what I am for the sake of the discussion.

What I would be termed as is an agnostic atheist. As of yet, there is no definitive evidence disproving the existence of some type of supernatural being. However, in regards to specific beliefs, I am a gnostic atheist. We can examine claims made by people and look at scripture and such logically to conclude that gods which we humans worship were created by our imaginations.

To put it simply, I think all religion's specific beliefs are bs but I don't defenestrate deism.

But now what's your theory since it had to come from somewhere, oh that's right, there is no God so there is no explanation since it wasn't created by a higher being and it didn't just appear.

There are more possibilities to explore than just God or poof. Since you seem to be claiming that something can't come from nothing, this leaves us to ask where your God came from. If your Go doesn't require this creation even, then why can we not just apply this to the matter/energy of our universe? Which would at least fit with what we know of the ability to create or destroy matter/energy.

Have you studied abiogenesis? Basically, what we can demonstrate at this point is that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can come from non-living material. So while we don't know exactly how life did form, we do know that it is possible for life to come from non-life.

We can also artificially put this stuff together and make synthetic DNA strands.
Some info on the origin of life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiopro … flife.html

Here is a fun way to look at the process.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/ … /builddna/

There isn't a formed explanation of exactly how it happened, but we've demonstrated that abiogenesis can happen, if that's your question.

One of the problems we are facing is that there are to many explanations. We don't know which is the more likely.

I wonder if this is the theists simply not looking at things from the other side, if they aren't knowledgeable about the terms, or if it's that they simply don't care because they think they're right.

There is some effort to indoctrunate Christians into thinking atheists "defy logic and say everything came from nothing" or other definitions I've seen such as "don't want to believe God exists" (which is not necessarily the case). Others like myself (when I was a Christian) did understand the term enough to know that the only implication it came with was lack of belief in a god, nothing more, so I wouldn't bother asking since I was the one claiming there was a god.
So basically, group 1 thinks atheist=stupid and evil, and there's no reason to investigate what they think any further. Group 2 understands what atheists are and doesn't need clarification.

Thanks for the link to talkorigins, Mage. I tried to bring that up but the page wasn't working when I made my post so I just left it out.

Didn't even have to read a paragraph in the first link to find an error. Hey said that cells had to much simpler, that is baseless to fit into their agenda. You still find single cell organisms but where do you find those much simpler cells? And since they decay there goes any sort of ancient evidence making it a baseless assumption.

@ImTheMostManlyMan:

Do you believe that there is this atheist conspiracy among scientists to pretend that things like evolution and abiogenesis are real to deconvert the theists? Because I can tell you that me and my evil atheist comrades are too busy silencing all the proofs of god like prayers being answered. ;)

In all seriousness, even if all the scientific data today gets turned on its head and proven wrong tomorrow, that doesn't lend a shred of evidence to theism. Existence must be demonstrated before belief is justified. It's the same reason you stopped believing in Santa Clause: you weren't justified believing he existed. How do you explain the presents getting there without Santa? What's the point of being good if Santa doesn't exist? The same things can be said of god, and I apologize if it sounds insulting to compare God to Santa Clause, but the reality is that neither one of them has been demonstrated to exist so belief in either one of them is unjustified.
Now, if you have justification for believing in God (evidence or proof FOR God, not AGAINST science), that's a different story, and if it is valid and sound, you may well convert me today.

I apologize if it sounds insulting to compare God to Santa Clause

Insulting to Santa Clause, maybe. Santa Clause isn't an egotistical supreme dictator, he just gives presents to good little boys and girls.

Hey said that cells had to much simpler, that is baseless to fit into their agenda.

Why is that baseless?

You still find single cell organisms but where do you find those much simpler cells?

Any of the "most simple" cells would have long since been outcompeted.

And since they decay there goes any sort of ancient evidence making it a baseless assumption.

Not really. As we've said before and have linked you to various things, it's been demonstrated that it's possible in the right conditions.

You really like the phrases, "guesswork" and "baseless assumption" but what you believe isn't even as founded as a simple guess or assumption. It's pure imagination with absolutely nothing backing it. Not a single shred of evidence for any claims regarding God are to be found, except in scripture. Anyone can write anything down, and since the claims are coming from the scripture, that can't be used as supporting evidence.

How about you actually give us a reason to accept that God isn't some fictional character?

No, attacking what we've said is not the same thing as supporting your claims. As BigP08 said, even if you did manage to disprove evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang theory, that wouldn't make your claims any more validated.

So...proof for God please. (I don't even know how many times I've asked this question now...)

Hey said that cells had to much simpler, that is baseless to fit into their agenda. You still find single cell organisms but where do you find those much simpler cells?

Those simpler cells could exist in the conditions that occured early on on earth. Saying modern single celled organisms are too complex is not baseless, but logic, as they are already way too specialized to be the first cells. It does fit in the agenda as it links abiogenesis with evolution.

And since they decay there goes any sort of ancient evidence making it a baseless assumption.

Granted, abiogenesis will never be able to tell us how it actually happened, since we cannot travel back and it didn't leave any traces. But explaining how it could have happened is not baseless at all as it could very well have happened that way (looking at the conditions, there's even reasonable chances for it to have happened that way).