Abiogenesis, Abiogenesis Debunked, Abiogenesis Explained, Atheist Creation Myth Debunked

Status: Finished

Abiogenesis, Abiogenesis Debunked, Abiogenesis Explained, Atheist Creation Myth Debunked

Status: Finished

This content is spam! Only visible to super-moderators.
Abiogenesis, Abiogenesis Debunked, Abiogenesis Explained, Atheist Creation Myth Debunked

Article by: TheDestroyersofLHCommunity

Genre: Religion and Spirituality

Houses:

Article by: TheDestroyersofLHCommunity

Details

Genre: Religion and Spirituality

Houses:

Summary

I was directed to this site by an atheist called Arzock who had previously wrote some negative comments on religion (specifically Christianity) so I thought I'd retaliate by explaining why the atheist creation myth (abiogenesis) is wrong.

Summary

I was directed to this site by an atheist called Arzock who had previously wrote some negative comments on religion (specifically Christianity) so I thought I'd retaliate by explaining why the atheist creation myth (abiogenesis) is wrong.

Content

Submitted: January 27, 2013

A A A | A A A

Content

Submitted: January 27, 2013

A A A

A A A


Atheists like Arzock would have man believe that his existence is all due to random chance and coincidence. The atheist creation myth teaches that life began in mud pools or in hot vents by the spontaneous generation of living organisms. The first cells supposedly just came to life from previously dead material. This ludicrous concept requires substantial faith to believe in due to it having no evidence, not adhering to scientific method and not being observable.

Some scientists have been able to "reproduce" what they think the conditions of Earth was back then and managed to create self-replicating RNA molecules in what is known as the Miller-Urey experiment and atheists naturally hail this as proof that their creation myth is correct. However they are utter misunderstand and misinterpret the real result that the Miller-Urey experiment showed. The experiment didn't show living things forming from dead matter (because molecules aren't alive) and therefore certainly didn't prove that life could form on its own. The whole test was a farce not to be taken seriously anyway simply due to the human-intervention involved in the test and the management of the conditions. The self-replicating RNA molecules formed because of humans in this instance administering the right chemicals and components in order. Scientists can't even be exactly sure of what the exact conditions were during this time on the ancient Earth and therefore all experiments are unreliable.

Most non-biased scientists have concluded that the origin of life remains unknowable based on current scientific knowledge and the abiogenesis hypothesis (myth) is simply based on speculation and faith.

This brings us back to Louis Pasteur debunking the previous form of abiogenesis, a concept known simply as spontaneous generation. From this came the law of biogenesis which states that "life only comes from pre-existing life" and this law is observable and logical. It is for this reason that theism remains the logical viewpoint over atheism.


© Copyright 2016 TheDestroyersofLHCommunity. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:

Comments

TheDestroyersofLHCommunity is a member of:

Share This: