- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I haven't made any claims about how life began. I really have no idea how it happened. My point is that it's not like the two options are:
a) God did it, or
b) lightning struck a mud puddle.
I am using the most logical example of how life began if God did not do it. Basic proteins can develop under the right circumstances in water, if you apply electricity. But that type of protein is simplistic, and it not the full protein needed by the body to build cells. As far as I know, no scientific labratory experiment under any circumstances can develop the basic units of DNA (nucleotides). If you wish to know more about that experiment, look up miller urey experiment on abiogenesis. So basically what I was saying was not a straw man attack on your view point. It is literally held by millions of skeptics. That life came from an electrocuted mud puddle.
secondly, there is no false dicotomy that I am presenting.
Either life came by natural chance
or it came on purpose by an intelligent being.
one by natural causes, one by supernatural causes.
I argue that if you see something made, you know there was a maker that made it. If you see a painting, you know there was a painter that painted it. There is a universe here, so either it was made or it made itself. Those are your two options.
what is the most logical?
definitely not that it made itself.
so the only other option is that of supernatural creation.
and this is why this solid logic, has not been defeated and still holds as a solid proof of God existence.
Upvote
0