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).

I looked the thread again, and so here's a youtube video MGW showed me once that explained abiogenesis. enjoy.

-Blade

@ImTheMostManlyMan Which is more reasonable? Cells dividing to create other things, which can be observed constantly with the right equipment, or an omnipotent God creating everything in the universe in 6 days with any type of physical form which would be required to create such things? And to clarify, I'm an apatheist. An apatheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, but doesnt' claim that there is no possibility. However, apatheists want no part of God if he does exist. I've seen and been witness to way too many acts of cruelty and other things that make me not want to be part of a God who is so cruel if he exists.

Without any type of physical form**  Sorry for the DP

An apatheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, but doesnt' claim that there is no possibility.

The term for that is agnostic atheist.

An apatheist would be someone who didn't give two bread crumbs for whether or not a god exists.

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.

No it's not an error or an agenda, you're just too closed minded.

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.

Single celled organisms such as bacteria do fossilize. So yes we do have evidence of earlier more simplistic single celled organisms. Besides this we still find that the fossil record goes from more simplistic to more advanced in structure. So this also makes it a reasonable assumption to make.

Bacteria: Fossil Record

And to clarify, I'm an apatheist. An apatheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, but doesnt' claim that there is no possibility.

Actually that would be lacking apathy to the belief o disbelief of a deity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

I shall be spending my time elsewhere because I'm not budging and it's quite apparent non of you will.

If the proper evidence was presented I would budge. Please don't project your closed mindedness on the rest of us. There is a difference between refusing to accept facts and not accepting a baseless claim.

I shall be spending my time elsewhere because I'm not budging and it's quite apparent non of you will.

All you need to do is provide evidence (as [1 Peter 3:15] requires you to) for a supernatural, infinitely all-powerful (although there was one spot [Exodus 31:17] where the author (supposedly Moses himself) used the Hebrew word naphash meaning 'to refresh oneself, to take a breath,' in regard to His day of resting, implying that His power needed to be restored through respiration) infinite being.

I shall be spending my time elsewhere because I'm not budging and it's quite apparent non of you will.

That's fine, if you don't wanna debate that's cool. But as others have pointed out, it's not that we won't budge, it's that we haven't been presented with sufficient reason to change our positions. I can tell you personally that I used to have very similar positions with my proofs for god (argument from incredulity) so I understand where you're coming from. I guess all I would do is challenge you to understand where we're coming from, even if you completely disagree. Anyway, see ya around.

I shall be spending my time elsewhere because I'm not budging and it's quite apparent non of you will.

Second thread you've stated this on, and not once have you given any sort of proof for your claims. All you've done is criticize misconceptions about scientific theories.

It's not that we aren't budging, you're basically running up to us, screaming that we think 2+2=poof, and then mockingly say how what we say is just guesswork or assumptions without ever providing any kind of proof in turn for your own beliefs.

Do you really expect us to budge when you do that?

On the other hand, we have been addressing every single one of your points. We have explained the hows and whys of our own stances. We've even said that there are parts we simply don't know yet. We've provided evidence and logical reasoning as for why what we say is currently the most likely explanation from given data, and that we can apply said knowledge in other ways too.

You just keep saying "God did it" without giving any kind of proof or even logical reasoning. Any sort of reasoning you do make (some can't come from nothing) applies to your own beliefs as well, except you purposefully don't include God so that he can be the right answer.

I'm definately not an Athiest.