Atheist, why assert unknown chemicals in the primordial past, through unknown processes that no longer exist, produced unknown lifeforms ...?

Question

... that are not to be found but could, through unknown reproduction methods, spawn new life in an unknown organic soup complex at an unknown time and place?

Why do you assert this thing with so many unknowns is a fact? Is it any wonder why atheism continues to be viewed as ridiculous?

Answer 1

why don't you worry about your own soul and if your trying to make those atheist think differently I can tell you right now all of you morons on here who talk this **** are going about it the wrong way YOUR just turning them off pushing them further away from what your trying to do BUT theres no talking to you YES YOU won't listen JESUS did not teach people about God this way WHY SHOULD YOU and who are you helping by pushing people further away from God with your own words THATS RIGHT satan satan is just loving you OH and one more little thing You are not the judge of anyones faith only God will be the judger of that YOUR a hypocrite lots of you atheist question askers you talk a lot of sh'it but you speak nothing about God use your head if your trying to convert someone the way your doing it even turns a person off that does believe in God

Answer 2

Gee where can I find what you're smoking?



idiot

Answer 3

1. We know the majority of the chemicals, 2. Know the basics of the process that style technically exist today, just not in natural conditions (we don't have boiling oceans anymore, thankfully), which is basically the fact that a group of phospholipids placed in water forms a double membrane, starting the process of separating the inside from the outside, and we know what it produced. We know most of the picture, just not the finer details of HOW to do it.

Answer 4

Uh oh, someone's gaps for their god are smaller than they realize.

http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

I expect you'll be furiously maintaining your ignorance like creationists and flat-earthers before you.

Answer 5

All theories, just like the Bible.

Answer 6

Atheist asserts that one day science will prove something. That science and proven fact interest them not faith and hope. The clash is religion asserting upon others.

Answer 7

So when faced with "unknowns" you are going to go with made up answers that are blatantly wrong? I'd prefer to go with what we know and what it shows that we are likely to find out. For example, we know the chemistry of life, we know that we can build enzymes that self replicate and we know that there are billions of microorganisms that would happily feed off of any of the products of early life.



Rather than mocking what we know because you are too lazy to learn, perhaps you would be better served by putting out the effort to understand what and why we know.

Answer 8

Just a few years ago, some men, like atheists, saw birds and said, "Somehow one day man will fly," while others, like you, said, "How could that ever be possible? It's much too complicated. It'll never work." And of course we've sent man to the moon.



You think it's a better guess to say a divine benevolent being did it, and that it took It billions of years, and during the last ice age, this pride of the deity had dwindled down to a few thousand individuals. OH yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Answer 9

Yes it is ridiculous. Not as real as an old guy going Let There Be Light! Now that has to be the truth!

Answer 10

faith, blind faith

Answer 11

1... we know the majority of the chemicals, 2... know the basics of the process that style technically exist today, just not in natural conditions (we don't have boiling oceans anymore, thankfully), which is basically the fact that a group of phospholipids placed in water forms a double membrane, starting the process of separating the inside from the outside, and we know what it produced... we know most of the picture, just not the finer details of how to do it...

Answer 12

You seem to be confusing "atheists" with "scientists". Atheism has nothing to do with science, and does not make any assertions about the origin of life.



And science has hypotheses about abiogenesis, not "assertions".

Answer 13

What else could have happened?

Answer 14

Truly truly i tell you, it is easier for a dead body to resurrect than for chemicals of life to rearrange themselves and become alive because for a dead body at least, all that is required is already in place, just a few additions maybe- but resurrection can't happen for a billion trillion years in any of the billion multiverses- chances remain zero.