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 "oof, 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?
