The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution

So you agree with many of us that the views you express here are without reason, then.Good. Why the sudden honesty?

You mean the kind of God that wants people stoned to death for working on a Sabbath or saying Goddammit? I agree with your description. Freedom from religious lunatics. It'll be heaven.

Life only comes from life, eh? So life is eternal, then, and has always existed, in your view. Is it a very well thought out view?Of course, if you decide that you're wrong, then you might come around to the more conventional view, shared by both evolutionists and creationists, that life on earth came into existence after the earth came into existence.You seem to have problems with the idea of natural phenomena having natural origins or causes. Even though the only causes ever identified for any natural phenomena have always been natural, so experience shows this to be the norm, and no non-natural causes for natural phenomena have ever been identified, you seem to be under the impression that in looking for the exact explanation for a natural phenomenon, like life, non-natural explanations should be considered seriously.The only natural explanation for life on earth is some sort of abiogenesis (even if it happened elsewhere and panspermia is involved). As with any as yet unexplained natural phenomonen, scientists can be pretty sure that the answer they're seeking is natural, based on past experience. So, the "large burden of proof" that you mention above is actually on the shoulders of those who seem to think, completely without reason, that life, a natural thing, should have non-natural origins.What's your preferred theory of the non-natural origin of life on earth?How many other natural things have proven to have non-natural origins in your opinion?Would you care to list them?

Well done! So, you agree now that you were wrong in your statement that "life only comes from life", because the first life cannot have come from previous life, can it? So in future, if you want to state something as an axiom, be more careful.Pasteur's law, therefore, has nothing to do with the origins of life. As it says in your link:

quote:

---

Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life", also known as the "law of biogenesis". They showed that life does not currently spontaneously arise in its present forms from non-life in nature. They did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve.

---

Pasteur's work was to do with dispelling myths like maggots appearing in cheese being abiogenesis. It is about "present forms" of life not arising spontaneously, as it says above. It has nothing to do with the natural origins of all life.The rest of your post is evasion, because, of course, you cannot list any natural phenomena that have non-natural explanations, and you cannot refute my claim that natural explanations for natural phenomena are the norm, as it's so obviously true.This means that the hypothesis that some form of abiogenesis must have happened is automatically a strong one, as it is the only natural explanation for life on earth and that your line that: is untrue, because I've just defended it very well.If you can show us evidence for some good magical or otherwise non-natural explanations for other natural phenomena, then the case for abiogenesis would be weakened. Of course, you can't, can you, so abiogenesis theory will remain as strong as ever.Edited by bluegenes, : typos

Not at all. When you don't have a blind faith in a God, your mind is open. You can consider the possibility that the universe was created by a team of wizards, for example, or by Goddesses, or mischievous elves, or by some kind of automatic process in other dimensions.Being an atheist frees the mind to consider endless possibilities. It is those emotional weaklings who remain in the religion of their childhoods whose minds remain closed by faith without reason.

In my case, yes it does. Think of a possibility that I'm not free to consider if you can, and tell me what it is. I can easily consider the possibility of a creator entity with out believing in one, remember. Blindness is a limit. The sighted can see all that's in possible range, and even choose to close their eyes for a few seconds to see what blindness is like.If you think both positions are equal, you can prove it by gouging your eyes out. No. And like you, I was born without faith. No. It is the eradication of limits.Want a game of chess, Jon?

I've explained to you elsewhere that Pasteur's law has to do with already existing life forms not coming from non-life, not with the origins of life. There are plenty of school kids who know this.You, of course, avoided replying.Stop repeating your mistakes, child. Are you trying to make Christians appear ignorant?