LordReed:
One of the anti-evolution claims is that life can only come from life and it is underscored by the creation claims like that of the Bible in the book of Genesis.

Let's take a closer look:

Creation of plants:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Creation of sea and air creatures:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Creation of land creatures:
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

In all of the preceding passages, we are told the god speaks to the elements to bring forth living things. None of these elements are living in themselves so how can the claim be made that the god creates life from life? On the contrary the bible actually seems to favour abiogenesis that is life from non-life.

It would be instructive to see how this matter is answered by believers in creation.

CC; budaatum, jesusjnr, michellekabod2, hakeem4, johnydon22, plaetton, HappyPagan, CAPSLOCKED, tingtingz, Niflheim, NPComplete, Maximus69, TV01, ihedinobi3

Michellekabod2:

Don't expect a sane response from theists....

LordReed:
One of the anti-evolution claims is that life can only come from life and it is underscored by the creation claims like that of the Bible in the book of Genesis.

Let's take a closer look:

Creation of plants:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Creation of sea and air creatures:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Creation of land creatures:
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

In all of the preceding passages, we are told the god speaks to the elements to bring forth living things. None of these elements are living in themselves so how can the claim be made that the god creates life from life? On the contrary the bible actually seems to favour abiogenesis that is life from non-life.

It would be instructive to see how this matter is answered by believers in creation.

CC; ihedinobi3

Ihedinobi3:

Although this is not an argument that I have made to you or to any other atheist in recent times - at least, not that I recall - it is a defensible one. It should be noted that you incorrectly (probably dishonestly) stated the argument to include a claim that God made life from life. That claim is not, to my knowledge, part of the argument at all.

As yourself said, life did not magically spring from water or soil. [s]It took the agency of the Living God to make it happen. As you quoted,

In the case of the plants,[/s]

"And God said, let the earth bring forth...and the earth brought forth..."

In the case of sea and air creatures,

"And God said, let the waters bring forth... And God created..."

And in the case of land animals,

"And God said, let the earth bring forth... And God made..."

So, Life, the Very Source of Life, is what made life come into existence using the non-living elements that Himself had made.

Ihedinobi3:

Although this is not an argument that I have made to you or to any other atheist in recent times - at least, not that I recall - it is a defensible one. It should be noted that you incorrectly (probably dishonestly) stated the argument to include a claim that God made life from life. That claim is not, to my knowledge, part of the argument at all.

As yourself said, life did not magically spring from water or soil. It took the agency of the Living God to make it happen. As you quoted,

In the case of the plants,

"And God said, let the earth bring forth...and the earth brought forth..."

In the case of sea and air creatures,

"And God said, let the waters bring forth... And God created..."

And in the case of land animals,

"And God said, let the earth bring forth... And God made..."

So, Life, the Very Source of Life, is what made life come into existence using the non-living elements that Himself had made.

LordReed:


Unless you can quote the place where I said the claim was that the god made life from life then it is you who is dishonest.

The question here is not what life was made by, the question is what life was made from. The Genesis accounts states that the god spoke to non-living elements to bring forth living things so in essence the god made living things from non-living matter. Your answer does nothing to explain this except to say living things were made by a living being, a position this question is not interested in.

hakeem4:
what are the agency of the living god ?

Ihedinobi3:

Regarding the quote, here is what you said:

"None of these elements are living in themselves so how can the claim be made that the god creates life from life?"

Regarding what the "question" here is, it isn't quite your responsibility to make the theist's argument for him. The theist argues that life cannot arise spontaneously from non-living phenomena. That is the argument. There must be a living agency in order for life to be created. That is borne out in the biblical witness. So, the argument holds true in the Bible.

LordReed:


This:
One of the anti-evolution claims is that life can only come from life and it is underscored by the creation claims like that of the Bible in the book of Genesis.
Was the statement of what I was addressing the place you quoted was a reflection of the passages I had quoted. We are not concerned with the agent.



Ok so abiogenesis is possible but it requires a living agent?

Ihedinobi3:

Re: your first paragraph:

You asked that I provide the quote where you said what I said that you said. That was all I did. So I was not being dishonest. You added that claim perhaps accidentally, perhaps disingenuously. Either way, it was not part of the argument at all, and you implied that it was.

Re: your second paragraph:

Abiogenesis, by definition, does not allow an agent. It is the spontaneous generation of life from non-living phenomena. That is not what happens in Genesis. In Genesis, the Living God created all life Himself. There was no spontaneous generation of life from non-living materials.

LordReed:


I didn't but your nitpicking ways must insist it is so. I am not surprised.



All we are concerned with now is the possibility of life arising from non-living matter. How is not in question here.

LordReed:


Unless you can quote the place where I said the claim was that the god made life from life then it is you who is dishonest.

The question here is not what life was made by, the question is what life was made from. The Genesis accounts states that the god spoke to non-living elements to bring forth living things so in essence the god made living things from non-living matter. Your answer does nothing to explain this except to say loving things were made by a living being, a position this question is not interested in.

Ihedinobi3:

You didn't what?

As always, you are out of your depth, LordReed.

malvisguy212:
I would likely you to know that the Genesis account did not entirely explained God creation, but only that which is particularly relevant to mankind. your arguments here is base on young earth creationist , they depend ONLY on Genesis account.

LordReed:


Go read my previous post.

LoL! You come, twist my words so that it says what you want then claim I am out of my depth. How about you stay focused on the subject instead of answering a different question.

Ihedinobi3:

I was merely asking for clarification, LordReed. Are you claiming that you never said what I quoted you to say? Your post is right here on the thread.

As for twisting your words, I never need to do that. Your words twist and turn and end up biting you in your behind all on their own.

LordReed:


What clarification do you need beyond what I already provided?

LoL! I kept the question focused on life coming life or non-life, you on the other hand want to take us everywhere but the subject. Answer a simple question; were the materials used to create living things themselves living materiel? That is all we are on, nothing else.

Ihedinobi3:

I think it is obvious that what you said was not true. I was willing to even consider that it was not a deliberate falsehood on your part, but you seem determined to prove that you were being disingenuous again.

As for your question, that is the disingenuousness and dishonesty showing itself again. Obviously, the theist's argument was that abiogenesis is impossible. Obviously, Genesis does not even remotely suggest that abiogenesis happened. But you are seeking to use the fact that God created physical life by using physical substances to produce life forms to prove abiogenesis in the biblical narrative.

That is why I hold that you are a dishonest person, LordReed. Even when I give you room to prove that you are not, you do your best to show that you live by dishonesty.

LordReed:


So?

LordReed:


You remain a piece of shit who twists things just so they can say what you want while completely ignoring what the person says.

malvisguy212:
your questions should be directed to young earth creationist. I would love to Read their reply .

Ihedinobi3:

You're welcome to your opinion of me. Not only does it not change mine of you, it also does not affect the veracity of my claims about you.

LordReed:


Likewise.

Ihedinobi3:

Great. Glad we understand each other.

LordReed:


Can you find me a source that claims abiogenesis is a spontaneous process to the exclusion of any other type of process?

Ihedinobi3:

Britannica has a page on it, as does Wikipedia, along with a bunch of dictionaries like Merriam-Webster.

Is it your position then that it is not a matter of spontaneity?

The biblical position is that God can do anything He wants. His power is unlimited by circumstance or an opposing will. So, of course He can cause life to arise out of inorganic materials.

Some Christians and theists might hold that evolution is a possible, and even perhaps the actual, way that God created the Universe. For them then, they can argue that life may come out of non-living materials as long as a powerful enough intelligent agency causes it to happen. This position is useless to atheists though, because any sort of supernatural agency cannot exist in your cosmology. So, atheistic evolution must occur spontaneously. In fact, I haven't seen one academic definition of abiogenesis that includes any external agency: as long as energy is in the mix, organic material can arise from inorganic and eventually gradually evolve into a complex living organism.

LordReed:


There is nothing about spontaneity in any place I can find.

Ihedinobi3:

What did you find?

LordReed:


Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex.
https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Ihedinobi3:

Does any of this contain anything about an external agent?