In other words, life can only come from life, Thank you.
There shouldnt even be a argument, there is no question about the extreme complexity of life. There is no way it wasnt designed.
BS. What if I pushed against my wall for nearly infinity, will I eventualy become the queen of England because of it? Is this possible, inevitable?? I dont think so.
Of course I believe in God.

Do you? I asked you to go for it. Put up or shut up.

the various theories about the origin of the universe are interesting although somewhat theoretical. they are certainly a point where a modern understanding of the universe and gods act of creation can combine. whether they do or not is another issue, and if they do, how relevant this is to our lives is very open.

abiogenesis is a different concept to evolution. it is the process of live developing from non life. it is also a point where science and creationism of some form can blend although once again how such an act of creation is relevant to our lives today is very open. the miller urey experiment proves nothing, as it was not expected to. but it did suggest that non theistic abiogenesis was certainly possible, that creating the fundamentals of life is not the sole domain of god.

evolution is not in question. it is as much a fact as the earth being round. denying this takes a monumental denial of evidence from so many diverse sources over centuries. the scientific debate is about the process of evolution, the mechanisms rather than the phenomena itself.

life has had 4 billion years to evolve adaptations to every environment on the planet, there is nowhere that is not colonised by some form of life. in this environment, abiogenesis does not occur, as any materials or environments that might be able to create de novo life are quickly taken up by pre existing life forms. today, life comes from life simply because life multiplies and evolves so much faster than abiogenesis. but in a pre life world, abiogenesis is left to its own devices for millenia, and this was sufficient for life to appear.

Grace;

today, yes. where there is no life yet evolved, abiogenesis has a chance. if you are patient enough to wait a few billion years.

true

this is an illogical leap of faith in direct contradiction to the evidence.

straw man. also quite irrelevant.

from a mathematical perspective, it is possible. statistically there is a chance that your pushing against a wall would lead to you becoming queen of england. if it is possible to separate mathematics from things like your lifespan, the social conditions of england, the weathering of the wall, etc. mathematics is a strange place.

do you think belief in god must lead to rejection of scientifically based knowledge ?

In other words you know nothing about it, and I would be completly wasting my time explaining any of it to you. The Miller experiment has been torn apart on this site several times, go back and look it up.

It takes great faith to believe that.

What evidence? For the 10th time in this thread, we have never witnessed, nor replicated any such thing. Life cannot come from non-life, we have no reason what so ever to believe it can. The only reason science is holding so strong to it, is cause then they would have to admit that they just dont know something.
Even worse they would have to admit life on this earth came from life somewhere else.
So its possible as long as you take out any truth to it, such as life span?

I believe just the opossite. Those who refuse to believe in the possibility of God reject scientificaly based knowledge, such as the fact that life can only come from life. That there is more than obvious design in every living creature on this earth. Such a advanced design that with all our inteligence we are not able to replicate any of it from raw elements.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In other words, even if abiogenesis has not been directly witnessed by humans in nature or in a lab, this doesn't mean abiogenesis hasn't occured or can't occur.

Exactly. And you can belive in God and science at the same time, without having to believe that what is in the Bible is correct. As I said, I am not an atheist, but I don't belong to any organised religion either. And I have no problem thinking that all of nature from the tiniest subatomic particle to the vastness of the cosmos is amazing, without having to say that it was all created 6000 years ago, by some guy whippng up his latest recipe. It doesn't matter who is right, it cannot be proven one way or the other right now. So sit back and enjoy what we have and believe whatever you like, and let others belive what they like, it doesn't make one damn bit of difference in the grand scheme of the known and unknown universe.

Of course not. Then again without evidence we really have no reason to believe in it. Going by that standard, we should believe every thing we are told, by anyone.

This is exactly what Im saying. All I was looking for was for someone to say scentificaly, that we just dont know. Instead of pushing everything guys like Dawkins says as fact.