http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Hundreds of scientists that have dedicated their entire lives all in agreement with each over the possible theories that explain different ways of proteins and everything forming
vs
a single guy with a few hours of research into a topic that started with bias thoughts from the start
1. I am an atheist. I dont believe in the god that resides in the temple/church/mosque. But I believe in the arguments put forward by Sir Stephen Hawking in
The Grand Design.
2. Hundreds of scientists have dedicated their lives for alchemy. That does not make it a science. Except nuclear fusion mercury does not turn into gold in any chemical reaction.
3. Abiogenesis is not a science. It is a hypothesis to make up for a missing link of the creation of life. Abiogenesis never took place in any laboratory till date. Here is a detailed discussion -
http://www.sciforums.com/I-need-conclusive-proof-of-Abiogenesis-t-109880.html4. If u read the article u'll know that it does not talk about the god u worship in daily life. It talks about some missing link that only something supernatural can explain.
p.s. I am repeating again. The thread is not moderated to delete any counter argument. It is to keep it clean from troll. Rather I welcome counter arguments and would love reply to any solid logical post to tear me down.
1. That would make you an agnostic rather than an atheist. To be fair, that doesn't really have much to do with what we were discussing.
2. The fact that they follow a scientfic method makes it science. These alchemist didn't -- they used every trick in the book to make it look like 'real' science. Alchemy was a foundation to chemistry, however from these people's mistakes, we've learned that alchemy isn't just possible (with the exception as you mentioned of nuclear fission / fusion)
3. Yeah, expect that thread is from 2011. That's 3 years ago -- just recently, abiogenesis has taken place in a lab:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/sciences-greatest-unsolved-mysteries-creating-life#slide-4.
4. "Supernatural"... right there ends that for me. If it talks about some missing link that can't currently be explained because we just don't know yet, I'm fine with that. But accepting an answer as "it's just supernatural / god did it" pisses me off. Humans thought "the sun moving around the earth" was supernatural, and they were wrong in almost every aspect. How can you explain the sun moving around the earth? There's no giant horses pulling it, there's no giant rope pulling it, it MUST be supernatural, right?