You wish to add a supernatural omnipotent being as the creator of the universe…
As a mere human, I do not have the power to add or subtract anything from the universe. Either there is a God or there isn’t.
…this makes the overall picture of everything that exists more complex.
Aaahhh, I get it now! You are complaining that the physical nature of the universe in its present state would be more complex with a god in the picture. So what if it is? Frankly, the earth is more complex than evolutionists are willing to admit. Not only is it complex, it has the imprint of intelligence on it.
You are now claiming that your creator does not add to the complexity of everything that exists because he is outside of everything that exists.
I still maintain that the Creator exists outside the creation.
Either your god exists and you are special pleading or your god does not exist.
Special pleading would exist in the following example:
1. I state “All murderers must be executed.”
2. I murder someone.
3. I declare that I am a special case and should not be executed.
Please tell me what rule or standard that I have set up has been violated. I really want to know.
At what point did I claim that I know the mechanism of abiogenesis?
So you were just attacking a strawman…
So, who’s setting up the strawman now? If you are going to make such accusations, you should at least put the quote in question in its proper context.
You said that the naturalist view was simpler. I asked (notice the “?”) if you could explain abiogenesis. Perhaps the manner in which I asked the question was to nuanced for you. I will try to avoid such confusion in the future by using simpler grammar.
…your list of logical fallacies grows longer by the minute!
Really? What list? Please, do tell. The two you have accused me of so far were bogus.
Why is abiogenesis simple?
Didn’t say it was. I said it was impossible. You said:
My own view is a much more simple explanation
I simply took you at your word and concluded that abiogenesis was a simple concept.
Why would the conditions that create the basis for life destroy it? On what basis are you claiming to know this?
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Life could not evolve in a primordial soup. The building blocks of proteins, and proteins themselves, are all very susceptable to destruction by oxygen and water. And at a fast rate. If water and oxygen are removed, then life can’t evolve in the first place.
Further, amino acids are right and left handed. RNA and DNA are made of strings of 100’s of left handed amino acids. The addition of a single right handed amino acid causes the intire stucture to fail. In all of the models presented, the left and rights would be produced in a 50/50 ratio. The homogenous nature of the ‘soup’ would ensure that the longs strings of only lefts won’t happen.
‘Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.’
Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversityPress, UK, p. 336.