Abiogenesis is impossible

[Unbeliever]

[Hydra009]

Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.

You are still confusing inferring things (deducing from empirical data) with assuming things (arriving on the scene with conclusions in hand)

[challengeatheism]

I repeat, since you're committing the exact same blunder again, that the fallacy in your position is that you are assuming going from zero to a fully functional cell in one go.  The only person here who asserts -- or even thinks -- that hemoglobin (much less a complete cell) spontaneously self-assembled out of clutter is you.

I repeat: the first thing to appear was a self-replicating molecule, not a complete cell.  If you continue to insist on spontaneous self-assembly of complete interlocked systems, you are deliberately absenting yourself from rational debate.  That is not by any stretch the current state of the theory, and the only people who insist that it is are those who insist on creationism in one manner or another.  If you want to debate abiogenesis, you have a responsibility to address the actual state of the field, not the nonsensical strawman you insist on creating.

I doubt you have the ability to do that, but hey, it's a very large universe and small-probability events happen all the time.

So let's start here: without copypasting, explain what hemoglobin would have to do with abiogenesis?  Considering that's billions of years before the earliest known creature with a vascualr system existed (about half a billion years ago, some three to three and a half billion years after life arose).  Prokaryotes don't require much in the way of circulation; blood is useless for unicellular life, and for the smallest protists.

Because basically, your argument boils down to "I can't imagine it, therefore it can't have happened that way".

Fortunately, the universe is not bound by the tiny limits of your imagination.

Unreasonable, blind and reasonable faith:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1840-unreasonable-blind-and-reasonable-faith

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2012/christianity-promotes-rational-and-evidential-exploration/

Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

Blind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believe

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

The pages of Scripture support the notion of “reasonable faith”. Perhaps this is why so many Christians are evidentialists and have applied this evidential view of the world to their professional investigations (I’ve assembled a partial list of some of these Christian investigators in a variety of fields). Christianity has not stunted the intellectual growth of these men and women (as Anais Nin seemed to insinuate), but has instead provided the foundation for their exploration. For these investigators, the evidential nature of the Christian Worldview was entirely consistent (and even foundational) to their investigative pursuits in every aspect of God’s creation. Christianity did not cause them to “cease to grow” but, instead, provided the philosophical foundation for their investigations.

be careful to not delude yourself through blind and unreasonable faith.

[Mike Cl]

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

be careful to not delude yourself through blind and unreasonable faith.

You are simply robotic--you can only cut and paste and even then only by vomiting up the same crap you have been fed.  I see no thinking here, no reasoning.  You are led around by the nose by you willful blindness and faith.  So, your cut and paste statement suggests you have faith because of evidence.  Name one piece of evidence--so far you have not.  You say, "be careful to not delude yourself through blind and unreasonable faith.--coming from you has given me the biggest belly laugh I've had in ages!  I can barely type through the tears of laughter!!!  What a pathetic idiot you are--you and reason associated together???!!! Yeah, right.............................

[Hakurei Reimu]

Good grief. Challengedtheism, the only thing you're doing is copypasting pre-canned answers from your favorite websites like a good little drone. Are you going to show that you have two brain cells to rub together and produce anything that is your own thoughts, your own opinions, your own cleverness, your own analysis?

[Mike Cl]

Good grief. Challengedtheism, the only thing you're doing is copypasting pre-canned answers from your favorite websites like a good little drone. Are you going to show that you have two brain cells to rub together and produce anything that is your own thoughts, your own opinions, your own cleverness, your own analysis?

Don't think so. 
There is no 'there' there.

[PickelledEggs]

I haven't read more than 2 of challengetheism's posts... the first couple, to be exact... Is he acting up and does something need to be done or can I go back to recovering from my cold?

[drunkenshoe]

He is just copy-pasting. Nothing we haven't seen for many times.

[Mike Cl]

I haven't read more than 2 of challengetheism's posts... the first couple, to be exact... Is he acting up and does something need to be done or can I go back to recovering from my cold?

He is simply a theist, therefore brainless and pretty harmless--except to himself.

[PickelledEggs]

He is simply a theist, therefore brainless and pretty harmless--except to himself.

Ah OK. As you were, then

Sent from your mom.

[Sal1981]

Even if Abiogenesis is a 1 in a trillion chance, it only has to happen once. And once it happens, a proto-cell replicating, evolution takes over and you get trees, mushrooms, dogs & cats, and Internet trolls.

[challengeatheism]

Even if Abiogenesis is a 1 in a trillion chance, it only has to happen once. And once it happens, a proto-cell replicating, evolution takes over and you get trees, mushrooms, dogs & cats, and Internet trolls.

The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.

[Sal1981]

The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.

Only thing that's unreasonable thing here is that you're still not banned.

Heard and read the Junkyard-747 "reasoning" hundreds of times, so much so, it now has that title! The firing squad is connected how exactly?

[Mermaid]

The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.

I am still waiting to talk to your parents.

[kilodelta]

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.

It Is not about surprise. The "argument of low possibility (chance)" is not compelling when the other side is confident that the event did happen. To use your analogy, 1000 marksmen missed their target. To argue that the event didn't happen because the likelihood is too low is a moot point because it is in the past with recorded results. Possibility is a prediction on the future, not a fact-finding tool for the past. It's like someone (creationist) thinking that some bullets must have actually hit because the possibility is too low for them to not hit... or the possibility of molecules coming together into a fashion that become self replicating is too low a possibility to happen.

One would expect flipping a penny 1,000 times would get about 50/50 heads and tails. But, if the results were 1,000 times coming up heads (very unlikely), saying it should have been 50/50 does not negate the results.

In fact, stating that it has a very low possibility is admitting to it being possible.