A theist view includes a god as part of their view of the universe, an atheist looking at the same universe does not include a god. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
I did not talk about creation, I stated very specifically 'everything that exists' …
Aaahh, yes. So you did. Somehow, I missed this.
…either your god exists or he doesn't, as you admitted yourself. It for this reason that claiming that your god is not part of the group 'everything that exists' but is somehow still real is special pleading.
Let me clarify: The set ‘Everything that Exists’ contains 'The Creator' and the subset ‘The Creation.’ Do you feel better now?
And your subset 'The creation' is the same as the set 'The Universe' in an atheist worldview.
You were attacking me…
So, asking a simple question is an attack? Which part of the question did you feel threatened by? Do you understand that these questions are not an attack? Do you feel that you are being attacked by these questions? Do you think that I shouldn’t ask so many questions?
Very funny! Ask anything you like.
Note: I never claimed that abiogenesis was simple. I suspect that your English comprehension is lacking, try re-reading what I actually said rather than what you wish I had 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.
I openly stated that it was MY conclusion.
It was clear from that statement that I was comparing two things rather than making a quantitative statement.
So when are you going to publish your 'proof' that abiogenesis could not occur in the journal Nature? Or is the peer review process a bit too damning for your liking?
There is no need to. The fact that sugars, amino acids, and such are easily oxidized is readily available in any college level chemistry book. That fact that life needs water and oxygen is in every 4 th grade science book.
Well, you are claiming this is 'proof' that abiogenesis could not occur under any circumstances, such an important discovery needs to be shared with the scientific community.
Yockey may believe that abiogenesis is an axiom other scientists do not.
He may also believe in little green men but others do not. What is your point?
Since you are claiming that he has proved that abiogenesis could not occur it is important to point out that the scientist you are quoting does believe that abiogenesis occurred.
You do understand he is arguing against just one hypothesis regarding abiogenesis dont you? Or did you just cut and paste from answers in genesis?
I suspect that your English comprehension is lacking, try re-reading what I actually said rather than what you wish I had said:
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Life could not evolve in a primordial soup.
As I understand it, all current speculations about abiogenesis involve a primordial soup. If you know of any that don’t involve a primordial soup, let me know
How about panspermia? I ought to repeat at this point I have no idea the what the mechanism of abiogenesis was since we only have hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. The only thing I believe is that abiogenesis was an entirely natural mechanism.
(Apologies for the formatting, Quotes seem to keep on overlapping whenever there is more than one line of text.)